Preamble

The House met at a Quarter past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

ALIENS (HAMPSTEAD)

Petition from Hampstead for repatriation of aliens resident therein; to lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Cutlery and Jute Webbing (Distribution)

Mr. Collins: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that since the cancellation of Orders affecting distribution certain goods, notably cutlery and jute webbing, are unobtainable through the normal trade channels; if he will ex amine the position and, if necessary, reinstate the controls and ensure equitable distribution.

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Stafford Cripps): I should be glad if my hon. Friend would send me particulars of the difficulties he has in mind so that I can have them looked into.

Factories (Allocation)

Mr. Austin: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement in regard to the present position at the Ford Motor Company's Barton factories; and what are the future plans in regard to these factories in view of the distress that is being caused by redundancy of labour and the uncertainty of their future activities.

Sir S. Cripps: It is intended that all three of the Government factories occupied by the Ford Motor Company in this area shall continue to be used for production. The main factory at Eccles has been allocated to Messrs. Platt Brothers for the production of textile machinery. Details of the allocation of theremaining two will be announced in the near future.

Mr. John Lewis: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that this factory was allocated to Platt Brothers many months ago and that they have received no security of tenure, as a result of which orders for plant for the production of textile machinery have been held up, and some 2,000 people have been discharged as redundant? Will my right hon. and learned Friend take steps to ensure that Platt Brothers receive security of tenure almost immediately so that they can place orders for their plant, and thus avoid unnecessary unemployment?

Sir S. Cripps: The factory has been allocated to Platt Brothers and they are aware what the position is.

Retail Licence Application, Cupar

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has considered the case brought to his notice of the ex-Serviceman discharged through being medically unfit, whose application to open a small business on his own account in Cupar, Fife, has been disallowed by the local price regulation committee, though an Italian, interned during the war, has recently been allowed to do so; and what action he is taking.

Sir S. Cripps: I am having the case examined, in consultation with the local price regulation committee, and will write to the hon. Member.

Mr. Stewart: Can my right hon. and learned Friend indicate whether the Board of Trade now propose to take a more generous view of the applications of these ex-Servicemen who want to set up in business, and have every right to do so?

Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid that that is another question.

German Plant and Machinery

Mr. Horabin: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many trade or business representatives have been given facilities to proceed to Germany to select any plant or machinery to be brought over to this country; who granted such facilities; and what authority these representatives have;
(2) if it is proposed to bring over from Germany to this country any plant or machinery; if so, what is the nature and extent thereof; and by whom will the selection be made.

Mr. Keeling: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that manufacturers are unable to get any decision from his Department as to what plants, machinery and tools in Germany are available for use in this country; and whether he will appoint a Board to give prompt decisions and to facilitate inspections.

Sir S. Cripps: It is proposed to bring certain German plant and machinery over to this country as reparations. The Potsdam Agreement on Reparations provides that 75 per cent. of such industrial capital equipment in the Western zones of Germany as is unnecessary for the German peace economy shall be made available as reparations to the United Kingdom, the United States of America and other countries entitled to reparations other than the Soviet Union and Poland. The amount of plant to be so removed is to be determined by the Control Council for Germany by 7th February, 1946, and provision is made for certain advance deliveries. Arrangements for allocating this plant amongst the countries entitled to reparations are now under discussion by the Governments concerned.
Limited numbers of technical experts selected in consultation with industry are being sent by the Government to visit Germany to inspect and report on certain plants. These experts will act on behalf of the Government and not in a personal or business capacity, and their reports will be made to the Government. Under the Potsdam Agreement, it is the duty of the Control Council in Berlin to determine what plant and equipment in Germany is available for Reparation deliveries. This task must be finished by 7th February next, but in the meantime certain plants are being declared available and arrangements have been made for the claimant countries to put in claims in respect of them. When they have been decided upon it is hoped that certain plant will become available for importation into this country.

Sir Patrick Hannon: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman decided to appoint a committee of some organisation in this country to take charge of the allocation of this plant when it comes to us; and has he received a report from the Economic Commission in Germany on

the amount of plant that will be available for this country?

Sir S. Cripps: As regards the second part of the question, only the plant that has already been announced by the Control Commission in Germany is known to be available. The rest will not be decided before 7th February.

Mr. Stokes: Is not this spoliation of a defeated enemy people, depriving them of their means of livelihood, altogether contrary to all good Socialist principles?

Sir S. Cripps: As I said in my answer, it is such machinery as is unnecessary for the German peace economy which will be made available.

Mr. Stokes: Then why is it necessary for us?

Lieutenant Skeffington-Lodge: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend think that, until there is an agreed economic settlement—

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is asking for an opinion and not for facts. I am always suspicious of a question starting, "Does not the hon. Member think.…?"

Women and Children's Footwear

Mr. Yates: asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the continued shortage of children's shoes in Birmingham, whether he will take immediate steps to ensure that Birmingham receives its fair share of available supplies.

Sir S. Cripps: I am satisfied, from the information given by my area distribution officers, who keep a close watch on the distribution of goods in limited supply, that Birmingham is receiving its fair share of the available supplies of children's shoes.

Mr. Yates: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there are no Wellingtons, sandals or gym, shoes available in Birmingham, which is causing a great strain on the supply of ordinary shoes? Is he aware that, in one instance, it was necessary to turn away 100 regular customers, and that children are having to go to school without proper footwear? Will he take steps to increase these supplies so as to ease the demand on the ordinary supplies of shoes?

Sir S. Cripps: We are taking every step necessary to increase the supply of children's shoes. If my hon. Friend will give me details of the case he has in mind, I will look into it.

Mr. Lipson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take steps to improve the quality of the shoes?

Captain George Jeger: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will extend to nurses the facilities for obtaining shoes, at present enjoyed by women officers in His Majesty's forces.

Sir S. Cripps: I regret that I cannot give one group of civilians special priority. I appreciate that nurses may have difficulty in buying suitable shoes, but the only remedy is increasing production. I am doing all I can to secure this, including types of shoes suitable for nurses.

Export Markets

Colonel Erroll: asked the President of the Board of Trade what indications he has given as to the overseas countries to which exporters should especially direct their attention.

Sir S. Cripps: As our needs of most overseas currencies are great, it is not at present necessary to concentrate on some export markets to the exclusion of others. Our objective is to build up stable markets from which there is likely to be a continuing demand for British goods. Apart, therefore, from exports of certain essential goods in very short supply, it is left to exporters themselves to distribute their exports over the markets most likely to prove of long term value. This policy has been fully explained to exporters in the course of discussions with my Department. We shall watch carefully the detailed development of our trade with every oversea market and will give guidance and advice to exporters whenever that seems to be desirable.

Sir P. Hannon: Surely the Board of Trade must give some general indication to the exporting community in this country of the markets which are available to receive our goods?

Sir S. Cripps: The position is that all markets are available, and we ask exporters to choose those which are likely to persist after this period of shortage of supplies.

Colonel Erroll: Is it not a fact that exporters do not know to what countries they can export until their licences are granted or refused?

Sir S. Cripps: A great number of goods are now freed from export licences.

Wireless Sets (Adaptor Units)

Colonel Erroll: asked the President of the Board of Trade when adaptors will be available to enable utility wireless receiving sets to receive long waves.

Sir S. Cripps: Arrangements have been made with the manufacturers under which the wartime civilian receivers can be modified to receive the long wave programme. Those who wish to have their sets adapted should get in touch with their retail suppliers. A separate adaptor unit for the sets is also on the market at a price of 43s. including Purchase Tax.

Colonel Erroll: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that these adaptors are not so far available, with the result that a large number of owners of utility sets will be unable to hear the broadcasts of the Royal Command performance tonight?

Sir S. Cripps: Adaptor sets are, I am informed, available now.

Clothing (Shop Window Displays)

Colonel Erroll: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give an approximate estimate of the amount of cloth and ready-made suits immobilised in the shop windows of tailors and outfitters in Great Britain at the present time.

Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir. The quantities in shop windows are negligible and I have no reason to suppose that any supplies are being immobilised in this way.

Colonel Erroll: Is it not a fact that some 200,000 suits or the material for them are so frozen?

Sir S. Cripps: Not according to my information.

Hairdressers' Equipment

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will allow an increase in the number of coupons available to hairdressers for


towels; and why it is proposed to introduce a purchase tax on scissors and clippers supplied for use by licensed hairdressers.

Sir S. Cripps: Ex-Servicemen reopening their hairdressing businesses are given coupons to obtain an initial stock of towels. I am discussing the possibility of extending this concession with the National Hairdressers' Federation. As regards the second part of the Question, hair clippers and scissors are chargeable under the Seventh Schedule to the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1940, at 33⅓ per cent. ad valorem. The law provides no relief from tax on any kind of articles in favour of any particular class of purchaser.

Major Legge-Bourke: Is any increase intended of the purchase price of these scissors and clippers?

Sir S. Cripps: Not so far as I am aware.

Synthetic Rubber Manufacture

Mr. John Lewis: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any progress has been made in the building of a plant for the manufacture of synthetic rubber under a licence which was granted to the British Celanese Corporation in 1943; and if so, what types of rubber are being manufactured and what is the out put per month.

Sir S. Cripps: I understand that in May, 1945, the company decided not to continue with their original proposals but to proceed with the erection of a pilot plant.

Plastics (Prices)

Flying-Officer Lever: asked the President of the Board of Trade what are the wholesale prices of Perspex, Diacone, Polystyrene, cellulose acetate and Beetle plastic in the United Kingdom and the sterling prices of the same materials in the U.S.A., respectively.

Sir S. Cripps: Polystyrene is not at present being made in this country. The other materials are sold in a variety of forms, and if my hon. and gallant Friend will let me know what descriptions and specifications he has in mind, I will endeavour to furnish him with the prices in this country and to obtain information as to prices of similar materials in the U.S.A.

Furniture (Dockets)

Mr. George Wallace: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the issue of dockets for furniture of married couples serving in His Majesty's Forces prior to their securing the living accommodation required to set up homes.

Sir S. Cripps: Yes, Sir. This is the present practice, provided that these couples have reasonable prospects of getting accommodation and of setting up home within two or three months.

Clothing Coupons (Service Personnel)

Lieutenant Skeffington-Lodge: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will arrange for an issue of clothing coupons to other ranks who have been in His Majesty's Forces for a long period, have volunteered to continue in the services as Regulars, and are anxious to wear civilian clothes while on leave.

Sir S. Cripps: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given on the 30th October to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cambridge (Major Symonds).

Office Premises, London (Rents)

Mr. Haydn Davies: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the hardship to small professional and commercial concerns in London as a result of being given notice to quit or to pay increased rentals by large scale organisations buying or leasing their buildings; and whether, as a measure of protection to the people concerned, he will consider exercising his powers under Regulation 51 (1) and (5), of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, and delegate to local authorities power to requisition such premises or necessary parts thereof.

Sir S. Cripps: My attention has been drawn to a number of cases of increased rent demanded for office premises. I can only exercise the powers under Regulation 51 if it appears to me to be necessary or expedient to do so for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community. At present, I have no evidence that the action suggested by my hon. Friend is necessary for the purpose stated.

Mr. Haydn Davies: If I were to supply the right hon. and learned Gentleman with numerous cases in London, would he arrange to look into them?

Sir S. Cripps: I have looked into a number of cases but they did not convince me that it was necessary or expedient to do something towards maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community.

Surgical Appliances

Mr. Bernard Taylor: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will arrange for the purchase of surgical appliances to be coupon free.

Sir S. Cripps: Surgical appliances which are not a substitute for ordinary clothing are already coupon free. In other cases, coupons must in fairness be surrendered. Supplementary coupons are, however, normally given to people who have to wear surgical appliances for the first time and in other cases of exceptional difficulty.

Mr. Maxton: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say on what date these appliances were made coupon free?

Sir S. Cripps: If the hon. Member will put that down on the Paper, I will let him know.

Mr. Maxton: Why will not the right hon. and learned Gentleman look at the list, and realise that nobody wears any of these things either for show or for entertainment; and will he reconsider the question of making the whole list free of coupons?

Wool Textile Industry

Mr. Maurice Webb: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he in tends to visit the West Riding to discuss the future of the wool industry.

Sir S. Cripps: I hope to visit Bradford on 30th November to discuss with representatives of the wool textile industry the question of establishing a tripartite working party for the wool industry.

Mr. Keeling: Is my right hon. and learned Friend not aware that they do not make woollens in Bradford, but worsteds?

Sanitary Towels

Mrs. Middleton: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now

able to make a statement regarding the supply of sanitary towels and to indicate the steps he is taking to remedy the general shortage of these articles.

Sir S. Cripps: Normally demand for sanitary towels runs at a rate of just under 5·3 million dozen a month and production was held rather above this level until the end of last June. But largely on account of factory and V.J. holidays, production fell to 5.2million dozen in July and to 3·9 million dozen in August. Although there was recovery to 5·6 million in September, it was insufficient to prevent shortage in the shops which caused anxiety and forward buying which in turn led to more widespread shortage in October.
Emergency measures have been applied. Firstly, although exports have been small, we have stopped supplies leaving the country. Secondly, the Service Departments have given up part of their small stock and this is now coming on the market. Thirdly, the cotton allocation for October to December has been increased to permit production up to a rate of 6·3 million dozen. And fourthly, as an insurance and to provide further immediate relief, dollar currency is being spent on imports; between now and the beginning of January we expect to get from 2½ to 3 million dozen sanitary towels from the U.S.A. and about half the quantity should arrive during the next few weeks. It is clear from the figures that the additional supplies now becoming available are considerably in excess of the quantities lost by the temporary setback in July and August and I have now every confidence that in the near future the shortage at home will end. I greatly regret any distress and inconvenience that may have been caused by the shortage and I can assure the House and the public that these additional supplies will be coming along soon and that there is now no need for further anxiety.

Mrs. Middleton: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his answer will bring reassurance to many of my constituents and to women generally throughout the country?

Coupons and Dockets (Changes)

Mr. Boardman: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that coupons of a class with which many


retail traders have not previously been acquainted are now being tendered to them; and whether he will ensure that retailers are fully acquainted with all classes of coupons or dockets, outside those in civilian clothing ration books, either through the medium of trade journals or the Chambers of Trade.

Sir S. Cripps: Full information regarding any changes in coupons or dockets is always circulated to the trade journals, the appropriate trade associations and to Chambers of Trade and Chambers of Commerce throughout the country. No new types of coupons or dockets have, however, been issued in recent months.

Individual Unit Traders

Sir P. Hannon: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement on the attitude of the Government on the preservation and expansion of individual unit traders in our national economy.

Sir S. Cripps: Yes, Sir. The Government believe that the efficient unit shop keeper has a continuing and important role to play in the distributive trade.

Sir P. Hannon: Has my right hon. and learned Friend received a communication from the National Chamber of Trade on this subject; and is he giving the suggestions embodied in the communication sympathetic consideration?

Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid I cannot answer that question without seeing it on the Paper.

Oilskins and Rubber Boots

Mr. Boothby: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take steps to expedite the production of oilskins and rubber boots for bona fide fishermen.

Sir S. Cripps: Arrangements are being made to direct additional cloth to the oil skin manufacturers who supply those ports where the demand has recently risen. The production of fishermen's boots is being increased by 25 per cent. for the last six months of this year.

Parachute and Balloon Material (Disposal)

Mr. Boardman: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he will give information concern-

ing the stocks of silk, nylon, cotton and other fabrics now held by parachute and balloon manufacturing firms; and will he authorise the release of such materials to be used for the purposes of clothing;
(2) whether he is aware of the quantities of silk, nylon, cotton and other fabrics rendered useless in their present forms as parachutes; and will he authorise their conversion into articles of clothing.

Sir S. Cripps: It is estimated that the total quantities are approximately 6,500,000 yards, of which approximately 3,500,000 yards are cotton and the remainder nylon, with the exception of small quantities of artificial silk and linen. These piece goods are being released for clothing and other civilian requirements as fast as they become available. 26,000,000 yards of nylon, cotton and celanese will become available from finished parachutes which have been surrendered by the Services as surplus, and when a full review has been made these quantities may be increased. Arrangements are being made for the conversion into clothing and other goods of these parachutes.

Timber Imports

Captain Gammans: asked the President of the Board of Trade what quantity of timber was landed in United Kingdom ports in October; and how this quantity compares with his estimate of timber imports for the same period.

Sir S. Cripps: The information asked for will not be available for some days. I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as it is available.

Paper Allocation (Fish Friers)

Major Younger: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the present allocation of paper to fish friers is less than at any time during the war; and to what extent this is due to any alteration in the allocations made by his Department to distributors.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): I have been asked to reply. The allocation of paper for fish friers is not now less than at any time during the war. It is part of the general wrapping allocation made to the retail food trade, which has remained constant during the last two years of the war, but has been cumula-


tively increased this year. A substantial increase has recently been made, the effect of which should be apparent shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIAN ARMY

Free Cigarette Issue

Major Wyatt: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the free cigarette issue to Indian other ranks in the Indian army has been cancelled; and whether he will take steps to reinstitute this free issue.

Mr. A. Henderson: There has been no cancellation of the free cigarette issue to Indian other ranks. My hon. and gallant Friend is presumably referring to the abolition in April last of the semi-concessional areas within the India Command. In 1942 when the Japanese threat was acute, parts of Southern and Eastern India in which troops were concentrated owing to their vulnerability to attack were declared semi-concessional areas. In these areas a free cigarette issue was given to Indian troops. When the Japanese threat to India had been removed, however, it was decided to abolish such areas. This involved the withdrawal of the free cigarette issue and a return to uniform treatment of all Indian troops in India.

War Gratuity

Major Wyatt: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what rates of war gratuity will be paid to Indian other ranks of the Indian Army.

The Under-Secretary of State for India (Mr. Arthur Henderson): With the hon. Member's permission I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT

Following is the statement:

Indian Army Ranks and Rupees per month for each month of reckonable War Service.

Daffadar, Havildar and equivalent rank
2/8/-


L/Daffadar, L/Havildar, Naik
2/2/-


L/Naik, Sepoy
1/12/-


Non comb. enrolled
1/2/-


Boys
-/14/-

ALBANIA

Major Wilkes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any conversations have been begun with a

view to recognising the government of Albania.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. McNeil): Yes, Sir, but I have no statement to make for the moment.

Major Wilkes: Could the House have an assurance that no claim on Albanian territory, from whatever quarter it may come, will have the approval or support of His Majesty's Government until there exists in Albania a recognised Government which can put the Albanian case before world public opinion, and the Council of the United Nations?

Mr. McNeil: I think that that is quite another question, of which I should need notice.

CHINA (SITUATION)

Lieutenant William Shepherd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make on the present position in China.

Mr. McNeil: The process of disarming the Japanese forces in China is virtually complete. To facilitate this, United States troops have been landed at a number of points in Northern China. In the province of Yunnan, the Central Government have strengthened their control by removing the former Governor, General Lung Yun. Although reports of fighting between Government and Communist forces should be treated with reserve, the situation remains tense. Negotiations continue, however, between the Chinese Government and the Communists. The economic and financial situation remains confused. Dr. T. V. Soong and the Minister of Finance have recently visited Shanghai where currency difficulties are particularly acute.

Air Commodore Harvey: Will the hon. Gentleman state what the position is in Manchuria at the present time?

Mr. McNeil: There again, the situation is quite confused.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Geneva Convention

Mr. John Foster: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, as Germany has been defeated and no


longer exists as a sovereign State, he will give instructions that the Geneva Convention shall no longer apply to German prisoners.

Mr. McNeil: No, Sir. Germany has not ceased to exist as a State, though the exercise of supreme authority in Germany has been assumed by the Allied Powers. His Majesty's Government consider that it is right that the standards of the Geneva Convention should, so far as practicable in present circumstances, continue to apply to German prisoners.

Populations (Expulsion)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the Allied Commission has not yet reported on the rate at which expelled Germans can be received into occupied Germany, what action he has taken with the Governments of Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary on the decisions to expel 4,500,000 Germans at the rate of 30,000 a day, commencing on 15th October.

Mr. McNeil: My right hon. Friend still has no official knowledge of any decision to expel 4,500,000 Germans, nor has he of the reports in this morning's Press of expulsions contemplated by the Soviet authorities, but he has called for immediate report upon both these points.

Mr. Stokes: As the matter is so very urgent, may I ask my hon. Friend whether, in view of the fact that the Russian Government could obviously stop these deportations if they so chose, he will assure the House that the strongest possible representations have been made by His Majesty's Government to the Russian Government in this respect?

Mr. McNeil: While my right hon. Friend would not wish to appear unsympathetic, I must point out that we cannot, lacking official confirmation, accept the implications in my hon. Friend's supplementary question.

Captain Gammans: Is it a fact or not that 500,000 people are being dumped in the British zone?

Mr. McNeil: As I have already explained, we have no information on this subject and I could not accept that as a fact.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: How long will it take to get this official information?

Mr. Stokes: In view of the tragic situation, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter once more on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Murdered British Prisoners

Sir John Mellor: asked the Prime Minister when the murderers of British prisoners of war at Stalag Luft III will be brought to trial.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Lawson): I have been asked to reply. The murders at Stalag Luft III are included in the indictment against the major war criminals being tried at Nuremburg later this month. The exact date of the trial of the many other persons involved in the murders has not been fixed. Some of those implicated are not yet in custody; others have been found to be dead. Investigations are being vigorously pursued, both by British and Allied personnel.

Captain Prescott: Will the right hon. Gentleman be sure that this does not develop into another Belsen trial?

Polish Displaced Persons (Postal Facilities)

Commander Douglas Marshall: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps are being taken to allow the Polish displaced persons in Germany to communicate with their families in Poland.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): Regular postal services are available between all Allied displaced persons located in assembly centres in the British zone of Germany and their next-of-kin in other countries. The services operate in both directions, but next-of-kin may originate correspondence only after they have received their first letter.

Commander Marshall: While I thank the Minister for his reply, is he aware that nearly a fortnight ago these people were under the impression that they were not able to communicate with their relatives at home?

Mr. Hynd: The fact is that a special postal service has been in operation for


some time between Polish displaced persons in the British zone and their relatives in Poland, but this arrangement was superseded on 20th October by a service which is provided now for all displaced persons in the British zone, which provides free postal facilities with next-of-kin in their own countries.

FRANCE (BRITISH CONSULATES)

Wing-Commander Roland Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps are being taken to reopen British consulates in France.

Mr. McNeil: British consular posts have so far been reopened at Paris, Bordeaux, Havre, Lille, Lyons, Marseilles, Nice, Rouen and Strasbourg. It is expected that the post at Nantes will be reopened shortly.

Sir P. Hannon: Are all the consuls appointed in these places British nationals?

Mr. McNeil: Yes, Sir, they are whole-time posts.

PALESTINE (GOVERNMENT POLICY)

Mrs Ayrton Gould: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the urgency of making provision for Jewish victims of Nazi persecution, he will make a statement on short-term policy of immigration into Palestine before he goes to America

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) on 30th October, in which I said that I was not yet in a position to say when a statement would be made but that it would be made as soon as possible.

Mrs. Ayrton Gould: Is the Prime Minister aware that the continued silence of His Majesty's Government makes it impossible for the loyal Jews in Palestine to exercise any control over the terrorists?

Mr. Attlee: I do not accept that for a moment. I cannot see that a matter of waiting for a day or two is any excuse whatever for resort to violence.

Mr. Janner: Surely the right hon. Gentleman knows that since 1939 there has

been in existence a White Paper which has been declared time after time to be illegal, and that it is not fair to make the people in Palestine wait further for permitted immigration in view of what was decided by the Mandates Commission..

Mr. Attlee: I have already said that a statement will be made. There can be no excuse whatever for not giving a reasonable time to allow a statement to be made and in any case there is no excuse for violence.

Mrs. Ayrton Gould: I beg to give notice that I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Long-Term Policy

Mr. Boothby: asked the Minister of Agriculture when he will be in a position to announce the long-term policy of His Majesty's Government for agriculture..

Mr. Stubbs: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the farm-workers' application to the Central Wages Board for a minimum wage of 90s. per week, which involves farmers' prices, he will now inform the House when the agricultural policy of the Government will be announced.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): I have nothing to add at present to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) on 15th October.

Mr. Boothby: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that the agricultural industry has been waiting for a long-term policy now for three years and when does he think he will be able to announce it?

Mr. Williams: Certainly it will not have to wait another three years.

Mr. Stubbs: Does my right hon. Friend realise that delay in announcing the Government's agricultural policy is inter ferring with the men returning to the land and that the application now before the Wages Board is not likely to receive the consent of the farmers until they know what is the Government's policy?

Dispossessed Farmers

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: asked the Minister of Agriculture what is the number of farmers dispossessed by order of the County War Agricultural Executive


Committees for the years 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943 and 1944, respectively.

Mr. T. Williams: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Does my right hon. Friend realise that there has been a number of very doubtful cases of eviction and will he carefully consider the possibility of setting up machinery by which these evicted farmers may have a right of appeal?

Year
Taking possession of Land (including all cases where tenancies have also been terminated).
Termination of Tenancies(excluding cases where possession has also been taken).


No. of cases.
Acreage.
No. of cases.
Acreage.


1940
…
…
1,210
82,105
687
63,357


1941
…
…
1,174
117,298
817
71,951


1942
…
…
1,972
126,790
884
78,660


1943
…
…
1,123
49,858
370
25,665


1944
…
…
240
9,810
126
7,102

In only a small proportion of the cases have the farmers affected been compelled to leave their homes and farms.

Requisitioned Land, Norfolk (Release)

Mr. Dye: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will now state the acreage of agricultural land in the county of Norfolk that has been taken for all military and Air Force purposes since 1938; how much of it has since been returned to agricultural purposes; and, in view of the paramount needs of food production, whether large acreages will be returned for cropping during the coming season.

Mr. T. Williams: The total areas of such land is approximately 40,000 acres, 7,700 acres of which have been derequisitioned and in large part returned to agricultural use. I am unable to say at present whether any further large acreages will be returned to cropping during the coming season, as this will depend on the requirements of the two Services, but my Department is working in close co-operation with them on this matter.

Mr. Dye: Is it possible for my right hon. Friend to get this land back to food production just as urgently as it was taken over for war purposes?

Mr. Williams: I do not agree that there have been a number of doubtful cases of eviction.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Will the figures be given for counties?

Following is the answer:

The numbers given below are net figures after deduction of cases where possession has subsequently been given up. I am unable to state the gross number of cases.

Mr. Williams: Most certainly. My Department is very anxious that all suitable land should be restored to its former use when the Services can make it available to us.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Will the right hon. Gentleman give active assistance to Members of this House who desire to get these areas back to their constituents from the War Office?

Mr. Williams: Certainly.

German Prisoners of War

Mr. Anthony Nutting: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will take steps to put an end to the difficulties of farmers in Leicestershire who have been unable to get German prisoner-of-war labour for gathering their potato harvest on account of priority claims on such labour for demolishing air raid shelters in Leicester City.

Mr. T. Williams: Nearly 4,000 prisoners of war as well as a considerable amount of military labour is available for agricultural work in Leicester and well over 90 per cent. of the potato crop has already been lifted.

Mr. Janner: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of employing further parties of prisoners from Leicester


Prison on this work, in view of the satisfactory results which have been obtained from the parties who have gone out from the prison hitherto?

Mr. Williams: That is another question.

Class B Releases

Mr. Dye: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many applications for release from the Forces under Class B have been received by His Ministry; how many have been passed on to the appropriate authority; and how many have been granted up to the lastest date for which figures are obtainable.

Mr. T. Williams: One thousand four hundred and eighty-three applications for Class B release under the individual specialists scheme of former agriculturists and persons required for "key" posts in industries ancillary to agriculture have been received by my Department up to 31st October. Of this number 572 were recommended to the appropriate authority who have approved release in 380 cases, and rejected 30 others either for non-compliance with the essential conditions of release or for Service reasons. Decisions in the remaining 162 cases are outstanding.

Wheat (Deficiency Payment)

Mr. Baldwin: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether in view of the proposed reduction by £2 of the acreage deficiency payment on wheat planted for the 1946 harvest, he will give farmers the right of a free market for that crop.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): I have been asked to reply. The prospective supply position for wheat makes it essential that as much home-grown mill-able wheat as possible from the 1946 crop shall be used for the production of flour. I am not therefore prepared to relax the existing regulations which require a grower to sell such wheat to an approved buyer.

Mr. Baldwin: While thanking the hon. Lady for the reply, may I ask whether she considers, in view of the rise in the cost of production, that this is the right time to reduce income for this very necessary article of food?

Dr. Summerskill: In view of the fact that we need all the wheat produced in

this country for human consumption, we cannot possibly leave it to individual farmers to decide how they shall dispose of this crop.

Mr. Stokes: May I ask the hon. Lady why she does not return to the 85 per cent. extraction loaf instead of pouring the stuff into the bowels of cows?

Returns and Surveys

Lieut.-Colonel Corbett: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the experience of various types of production, due to pre-war and war-time conditions, now possessed by farmers, he will call for a return through W.A.E.C.s giving farmers the opportunity of saying what could be their maximum annual output of crops, live stock and other produce; how many regular workers, in addition to those they now have, would be required by them to produce that maximum; what housing would be required, both new and reconditioned, to accommodate this labour satisfactorily, and if he will give an assurance that he will take into consideration the answers an framing his post-war policy.

Mr. T. Williams: Generally speaking, existing returns and recent farm surveys provide the information necessary for; the consideration of agricultural policy, including the assessment of production potentialities and of labour and housing requirements. Additional inquiries will be made as they are needed, but I do not think that a special return of the kind suggested is necessary.

Women's Land Army

Lieut.-Colonel Corbett: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has considered the W.L.A. National Charter, a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he has any statement to make thereon.

Mr. T. Williams: This document contains a number of suggestions about the treatment and conditions of service of members of the W.L.A., many of which are already effective. Others, however, cannot be adopted for reasons which have already been explained to the House.

Calves (Vaccination)

Lieut.-Colonel Corbett: asked the Minister of Agriculture when he proposes


to extend the calfhood vaccination scheme against contagious abortion to all cattle in addition to dairy herd heifers.

Mr. T. Williams: Until more veterinary manpower is available, it would not be practicable to consider the extension of the calfhood vaccination scheme to all cattle herds.

Trained Ex-Servicemen (Housing)

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he is taking to ensure adequate accommodation is available for ex-Servicemen who complete the agricultural and horticultural training courses.

Mr. T. Williams: When a man has been trained and takes up farm work he will, as regards housing, be in the same position as other members of the rural population. The provision of more houses in rural areas is receiving the urgent attention of the Government.

Bulb-Growing Industry

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is taking any steps to safeguard the bulb-growing industry of this country; and to encourage a full re-establishment of this industry.

Mr. T. Williams: Yes, Sir.

Resettlement Grants

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, when the financial assistance in connection with the resettlement grants for smallholders will be forthcoming and why, in view of the fact that a substantial number of small shop keepers have received their resettlement grants already, smallholders have been kept waiting so much longer for this assistance.

Mr. T. Williams: As I informed the hon. Member on 29th October, the resettlement grants scheme for agriculture will be introduced at an early date. I would remind him that the Supplementary Vote providing for expenditure on this scheme was taken as recently as 16th October, and there will be no avoidable delay in bringing the scheme into operation.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the Minister aware that I want to avoid delays—avoidable, unavoidable or any other sort of delays—as this is an important matter?

FISHING INDUSTRY (INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE)

Mr. Boothby: asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps are being taken by His Majesty's Government to obtain an international agreement to, prevent the grounds in the North Sea and Channel from being over-fished; and to prevent the destruction of immature fish by limiting the size of mesh for all fishing other than that conducted for certain special purposes in defined areas.

Mr. T. Williams: As stated in my reply to the hon. Member's question on 29th October, His Majesty's Government have decided to convene an International Conference to try to reach agreement to prevent the over-fishing of the North Sea. This will no doubt afford a suitable opportunity for discussing the limitation of the size of mesh of fishing nets.

Mr. Boothby: Is this conference likely to meet within the next three years?

Mr. Williams: I hope so.

LIBERATED EUROPE (FOOD DISTRIBUTION)

Captain Bullock: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any steps are being taken to ensure the survival and feeding during the coming winter of those people who gave assistance, at great risk to themselves, to allied armed forces and to escaped allied prisoners of war during the German occupation of Europe..

Mr. McNeil: Food distribution in the liberated European countries is under the control of the National Governments concerned. Arrangements have, however, been made by which His Majesty's Government are able to compensate in other ways those people who, during the German occupation of Europe, served the Allied cause so well.

Captain Bullock: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if a reliable list of these people has been compiled?

Mr. McNeil: I should like to have notice of that Question.

Miss Rathbone: Is the Minister aware that very many of the people referred to are Jewish and other people, who are now living under miserable conditions, in camps which are not very much better than the German internment camps?

YUGOSLAVIA (MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT, VISIT)

Flight-Lieutenant Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he is taking to send observers to Yugoslavia to report on the coming elections; if he is in a position to give their names; and if he will consider giving facilities to Members of this House to visit Yugoslavia for that purpose..

Mr. McNeil: His Majesty's Government are sending no observers to report on the elections, but they will be kept fully informed by His Majesty's Ambassador.

Flight-Lieutenant Teeling: Can I take it, therefore, that the group of Members of Parliament who have just gone to Yugoslavia are in no way going as representatives of this House of Commons?

Mr. McNeil: It is correct to make the assumption that the hon. Gentlemen who have proceeded there are not a Parliamentary delegation.

Sir P. Hannon: Surely, some arrangement must have been come to with the Foreign Office whereby these gentlemen have been sent out to Yugoslavia? Would not the Foreign Office make arrangements for their visit?

Mr. McNeil: Neither the Foreign Office nor His Majesty's Government would seek to be their brothers' keepers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] These hon. Gentlemen proceeded at the invitation of the Yugoslav Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Reconditioned Motor Cars (Doctors)

Mr. John Foster: asked the Minister of War Transport whether he will consider granting permits for reconditioned motor cars to doctors demobilised from the Services in view of the fact that many of these doctors find that the price of new motor cars is beyond their means.

The Minister of War Transport (Mr. Barnes): The present limited supply of these vehicles falls far short of the number of very deserving applications from disabled ex-Servicemen, nurses and mid-wives, for whom they are being reserved, and I regret therefore that I cannot adopt this suggestion.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Secretary of State for War to see whether there are any spare motor cars?

Transport Services

Mr. Leslie: asked the Minister of War Transport whether he will facilitate an in crease in transport services in the county of Durham, especially in the Sedgefield and Bellingham areas, and thereby obviate the present queues where people are kept waiting for sometimes over an hour and often longer.

Mr. Barnes: Most of the services in Sedgefield and Billingham have now been restored to pre-war strength. I have no recent information indicating special difficulties in these areas, but if my hon. Friend has any particular case in mind I will inquire into it.

Mr. Leslie: Would it be possible to put on extra buses during the period, because I have the experience every weekend I am there of having to wait a considerable period before I can get from one station to another?

Mr. Barnes: Of course, I would like to improve services, but as my hon. Friend knows, it depends very largely on the increase of labour; and his own area has not done so very badly compared with the average throughout the country.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Minister of War Transport if he will indicate when he will strengthen transport services in rural areas, particularly the Lonsdale division of Lancaster.

Mr. Barnes: Services in rural areas are being strengthened progressively as the necessary crews and vehicles become available. There have been steady improvements in the services of the Ribble company in the Lonsdale division.

Sir I. Fraser: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the rural areas deserve better transport, before he increases the number of charabancs?

Mr. Barnes: I am very well aware of the necessity of improving rural transport services, but I would emphasise to the hon. and gallant Member that we cannot look for regular and uniform improvement of these services, and I think the policy that I am adopting, of improving them wherever it is possible, will show the best dividend.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it is advisable to make a frank statement on this question to many of the small bus companies, because the wages they pay are not good enough, and they are not able to attract the labour for the crews?

Mr. Barnes: That is another question.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: When he speaks of motor transport in that part of Lancashire, does not the right hon. Gentleman know that all transport in North-East Lancashire is even more atrocious today than it was when I first came to this House, ten years ago?

Mr. Barnes: I should not like to draw the obvious inference from that.

Mr. Attewell: asked the Minister of War Transport what steps he is taking to remedy the inadequate omnibus service of the village of Slawston, Leicestershire, where the only omnibus serving the village is between Hallaston and Market Harborough on Tuesdays and one return journey to Leicester on Wednesdays, as the omnibus company have omnibuses standing idle in their gagages but not the manpower to cover the services needed..

Mr. Barnes: The operator concerned intends to restore a Saturday service between Slawston and Leicester and beween Slawston and Market Harborough as soon as the necessary crews can be obtained.

Mr. Attewell: Is the Minister aware that the buses are in the garages awaiting the crews which the Ministry of Labour has been unable to supply for them?

Mr. Barnes: I am afraid we are all somewhat aware of that position, and we are doing our best to remedy it.

Haulage Licences

Lieut.-Colonel Byers: asked the Minister of War Transport whether he will state in what circumstances his representatives have the right to cancel existing A licences or to downgrade them from A to B.

Mr. Barnes: Under the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, where a vehicle specified in a licence ceases to be used as prescribed under the licence, it may be removed from the licence. Permits in lieu of licences may be terminated simi-

larly. If the hon. and gallant Member has any particular case in mind, perhaps he will let me know.

DOCK STRIKES (EFFECT ON SHIPPING)

Major Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of War Transport the extent to which ships engaged upon or earmarked for the repatriation of British prisoners of war and of members of the forces returning to this country, have been delayed by the dockers' strike..

Mr. Barnes: Some delay has arisen in the supply of materials requiring shipment to certain vessels fitting as troopships in Northern Ireland and on the Continent which will retard the dates of completion of these vessels. The extent of such delay cannot, however, yet be stated.

Captain Gammans: Does that mean that the dock strike had no effect on the repatriation of men from the Far East and the Middle East?

Mr. Barnes: With the exception of what I have indicated here, certainly no substantial effect has been caused because special military attention was given to the problem.

SERVICES PERSONNEL, FAR EAST (SHIPPING ALLOCATION)

Brigadier Low: asked the Minister of War Transport for how many men and women in the Services at present stationed in India, Burma or elsewhere in the Far East, he has allotted shipping space in each of the months of December, January, February and March in the coming winter..

Mr. Barnes: Whilst I am responsible for the provision of the shipping to meet the world-wide requirements of the Services for the movement of the personnel, the detailed allocation of this shipping between the various requirements is a matter for the Service Ministries. I am informed that detailed allocation of shipping for the months in question is still under consideration.

Captain Gammans: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman has not the faintest idea how many men will be brought to this country in December?

Mr. Barnes: I have an actual idea.

CIVIL AIRCRAFT (PRODUCTION)

Wing-Commander Roland Robinson: asked the Minister of Supply and of Aircraft Production if he will give figures showing the monthly production, by types, of civil aircraft in the United Kingdom since 1st January, 1945..

The Minister of Supply and of Aircraft Production (Mr. John Wilmot): Fifty-six civil aircraft of eight different types have been produced from 1st January to 31st October, 1945. With the hon. and gallant Member's permission, I will cir-

1945



Jan.
Feb.
March.
April.
May.
June.
July.
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Total


Lancastrian 1
…
—
1
2
3
2
5
2
3
3
2
23


York
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
2
1
2
2
7


Dominie
…
…
—
—
—
—
1
2
4
3
4
6
20


Viking
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
1
—
2


Auster
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
1


Dove
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
1


Aerovan
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
1


Proctor
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
1


Total
…
—
1
2
3
3
9
8
8
11
11
56

MOTOR VEHICLES (SPARE PARTS)

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Supply and of Aircraft Production if he is aware that the shortage of spare parts and accessories has become even more acute during the past three months; what steps he is taking to remove this handicap on general trade; and whether he will endeavour to acquire stocks of accessories now in the hands of manufacturers which were purchased by the U.S.A. but which, apparently, are no longer required..

Mr. Wilmot: The shortage of spare parts and accessories for motor vehicles has been aggravated by the re-introduction of the basic petrol ration, by the removal of restriction on the export of spares and accessories, and by the age of the vehicles now in use. Every effort is being made to encourage both vehicle and component manufacturers to meet the increased demand, and vehicle manufacturers can draw on surplus Service spares to meet their civilian requirements when such a course is practicable. I am not aware of the stocks of accessories purchased by the U.S.A. to which my hon. Friend refers and I shall be glad if he will send me particulars

culate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement showing the types and monthly deliveries..

Wing-Commander Robinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how we are going to lead the world in civil aviation with ten months' production of 56 machines?

Mr. Wilmot: By a very greatly accelerated programme, now that the war is over.

Following is the statement:

RELEASED VEHICLES (DISPOSAL)

Mr. Quintin Hogg: asked the Minister of Supply and Aircraft Production how many of the 51,600 vehicles which have been passed to industry for disposal to the public through trade channels have, in fact, come into the hands of members of the public through those channels.

Mr. Wilmot: The 51,600 vehicles referred to have been passed to industry over a period of more than four years, and I have not the figures of disposals by the trade for which the hon. Member asks.

Mr. Hogg: Is the Minister satisfied with the number of vehicles of this class now in the hands of the public, and is he taking any steps to increase the number?

Mr. Wilmot: The number is being rapidly increased, and we are doing everything we can to urge it forward.

FUEL AND POWER

Electricity Supplies, Kent

Mr. Sidney Marshall: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is aware that the Kent Electric Power Company, Ltd., before agreeing to bring a supply to


the owner of Basing Farm, Cowden, Kent, who is an attested milk producer, require a payment of £500 towards the cost and a guaranteed revenue of £150 per annum for five years; and, as such terms are unlikely to encourage farmers to bring their farms up to date or to encourage milk production, will he take steps to see that such demands are considerably modified or waived.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Shinwell): I understand that some revision of these terms may be possible if another farm on the road of the proposed mains is prepared to take a supply of electricity. The matter is not one in which, under my present powers, I am able to intervene. As regards the general question of rural electricity supplies, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville) on 9th October.

Mr. Stokes: May I ask whether the Minister will take powers to interfere in these matters, because these charges are preposterous, having regard to the facilities given by the electric supply companies?

Mr. Shinwell: Of course, I shall take steps in due course.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the Minister aware that I am asking him to do this during the course of the week?

Liquid Paraffin (Stocks)

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what is the present position of stocks of liquid paraffin in this country; what is the reason for the shortage of supplies in many districts including the Alderley Edge district of Cheshire; and what steps are being taken to remedy the position.

Mr. Shinwell: Stocks of liquid paraffin in this country at present represent six to seven weeks' normal supply. Distributors are receiving supplies at the same rate as during the last three years, namely 100 per cent. of their 1938 trade. The shortage of supplies for medicinal purposes, appears to be due to the use of large quantities for culinary purposes. The Departments concerned are actively considering what steps can be taken to ensure supplies for medicinal purposes, and I hope that the publicity given to the matter will help.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Would it not be possible to discourage the improper use of this liquid by mixing a little peppermint with it?

Mr. Stokes: Why?

Mr. Shinwell: That seems to me to be a pathological question.

ROYAL NAVY (D.S.M. AWARDS)

Mr. Channon: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that naval ratings awarded the D.S.M. in the 1939–45 war received an increase of 6d. per day in pension rates, whilst those who were awarded the D.S.M. in the 1914–18 war received no such increase; and whether he proposes to take any action with regard to this anomaly.

The Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): No, Sir. As stated by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the previous Government on 10th April last, in reply to a similar Question by the former Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery), this concession applies only to members of the Forces awarded the medal for service since 3rd September, 1939.

EMPIRE CASUALTIES, SINGAPORE

Captain Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will publish a statement showing the total casualties suffered by men of the Imperial Forces, taken prisoner at Singapore, during their captivity; and if he will give an estimate of the number of Indian labourers who died as a result of being taken to Siam to work on the railway.

Mr. Keeling: Congratulations on your century, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. J. J. Lawson: I regret I am not yet in a position to furnish the figures asked for.

Captain Gammans: When will the right hon. Gentleman feel that he can make public a statement, considering the ghastly casualties suffered by our men who were taken prisoner at Singapore? Is he not yet in a position to make a statement on the number who died?

Mr. Lawson: The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows very well the difficulty of getting information about this particular incident, and also, of course, the


difficulty of making contact with people who were on the scene at that particular time.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Germany (Marriage Ban)

Mr. Ben Levy: asked the Secretary of State for War when he is prepared to lift the ban that prohibits the British soldier from marrying whom he pleases, if his choice should fall upon a girl of German nationality.

Mr. Lawson: I am unable to make any forecast. I would refer any hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 18th October, to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Solihull (Lieut.-Colonel Lindsay).

Press Interview (Officer's Statement)

Flying-Officer Lever: asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that Captain J. G. Johnson, of Oxford, recently gave a Press interview, reporting statements of German prisoners in the transit camp he commands, containing slanders upon our Russian allies; and if he will ensure that, in future, no British officer repeats this conduct..

Mr. Lawson: I have no information on this case. I am making inquiries and will write to my hon. and gallant Friend.

Sentence (Case for Inquiry)

Flying-Officer Lever: asked the Secretary of State for War, whether he is aware that Gunner E. G. Bailey, recently sentenced to death for murder, was stated to be mentally aged nine years of age by reason of congenital defect; how this man came to be passed as fit for the Army; how long he has been with the Army; and whether he has been medically examined since his admission.

Mr. Lawson: I am looking into this case and will write to my hon. and gallant Friend.

RELEASE GROUPS (RETAINED MEN)

Mr. Proctor: asked the Minister of Labour if he will consider giving a percentage increase in pay to all those officers and men in the Forces who are retained beyond the normal date of the release of their group.

Lieut.-Colonel Lindsay: asked the Minister of Labour whether he intends to compensate financially all those who are compulsorily detained beyond their age and service group.

Mr. Mathers (Treasurer of the Household): I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Members to my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Ayles) on 9th October, a copy of which he is sending them.

GREEK SEAMEN (LANDING BAN)

Mr. Alfred Edwards: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can make a statement regarding a number of Greek seamen, officers and men, who arrived recently at the port of Middlesbrough for the purpose of joining, other Greek ships under charter to the Ministry of War Transport and who have been refused permission to land by the Immigration Authorities.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede):The seamen in question arrived as passengers and applied for leave to land in order to join ships in this country. As there is already a large surplus of Greek seamen available for sea employment, including over 300, both officers and ratings at Cardiff, it has been decided in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of War Transport that no more Greek seamen should be allowed to land here and swell the surplus. These men were accordingly refused leave to land, and I am not aware of any reason for reconsidering this decision.

Mr. Edwards: These men were not warned that this might arise before they left Greece and apparently they had authority to come to this country. Is it not pretty hard on these men that they should now have to follow this ship to Canada; and, when they get to Canada, will they be allowed to land there? Every one of them has a Greek ship to join which needs their services. One ship is lying in the Tees, just on the other side of the river.

Mr. Ede: No, Sir, that is entirely contrary to the information in my possession. These men had no authority when they left Greece which would lead them to


imagine they would be able to land in this country. If Greek seamen are needed to man Greek ships, there are over 300 unemployed Greek seamen in this country at the present time. The view taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister of War Transport and myself is that those men should be employed before fresh Greek seamen are brought here merely to swell the number of unemployed Greek seamen in this country.

Mr. Edwards: Whilst I agree entirely with the point of view expressed by the Minister, as there appears to be some misunderstanding, and these men have arrived here, and have been engaged for the sole purpose of joining ships in the charter of our Government, can the right hon. Gentleman look into this and see if the intense hardship caused to these men cannot be alleviated?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. Any mistake there may be, has been committed in Greece and not here, and I cannot undertake to rectify mistakes of that kind and encourage additional Greek seamen to arrive in this country under the same pretences.

LONDON OMNIBUSES (STANDING PASSENGERS)

Captain Gammans: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of War Transport if the action being taken by conductors of the London Passenger Transport Board to prohibit or restrict passengers standing in omnibuses is with the agreement of his Ministry, and what steps he proposes to take to provide sufficient transport for the people of London, especially during the rush hours?

Mr. Barnes: Any such action on the part of conductors in refusing to carry any standing passengers at off-peak hours is without authority. I should explain, however, that to ease the strain on the staff, I have agreed with the Board that the number of standing passengers shall be reduced from 12 to eight at off-peak periods. This comes into force on Saturday. Details have already appeared in the Press. As regards the second part of the Question, the Board's services are being improved as fast as new staffs become available.

Captain Gammans: Since the action now being taken appears to be quite illegal, is this another example of the

Transport and General Workers' Union having lost all control over its members?

Mr. Barnes:: I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend is at all entitled to draw that conclusion. After all, this is a Private Notice Question, and I have not had very long to look into the circumstances.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Would the right hon. Gentleman look into this question again? Is it not apparent that the difference between the bus workers, on the one hand, and his Ministry, on the other, is whether eight people or five shall stand, and at the moment, as he says eight, they say that none at all may stand, cannot we have reason brought to bear, if the difference is only three, and have good will all round?

Mr. Barnes: If hon. Members will take the trouble to read my reply to this Question, they will see what are the facts at the present moment, and that any action taken before next Saturday is unauthorised. The repercussions of this will continue to receive my attention.

Mr. Walkden: I hope they will.

Mr. Stokes: Will the Minister explain to the House why it is necessary, in view of the very great inconvenience to a large number of travellers, for this to come into force only on Saturday? Is it not possible to make it applicable a little earlier?

Mr. Barnes: This does not add to the comfort of passengers, because many passengers who hitherto have been carried on the buses may not find themselves able to procure even standing room. One has to balance the advantages and disadvantages of a proposal of this kind, and Saturday is a very good day to bring in the change.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: What action can the Minister take—

Mr. Keeling: Does the Minister advise the public to exercise their right to stand, within the limits allowed, and to refuse to leave at the bidding of conductors?

Mr. Barnes: What I have stated is, I think, perfectly plain, and if that receives the publicity which I hope it will receive, both the public and the staff of the London Passenger Transport Board should know exactly what is the position.

An Hon. Member: But what about this week?

Mr. Glanville: Is the Minister aware that I and a friend coming to this House by 'bus this morning were two among 10 standing passengers?

Mr. Studholme: Is the Minister aware that the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Studholme) was refused permission to stand in a 'bus today, when there were no people standing?

Mr. Barnes: Perhaps that is the cause of all the bother.

Orders of the Day — BUILDING RESTRICTIONS (WARTIME CONTRAVENTIONS)'BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.20 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The Bill I am asking the House to consider today is couched in rather technical language. However, I have had certain advantages that other Members do not enjoy and, therefore, I shall attempt to explain as simply as I can the purpose of the Bill in the short time, I hope, which it will be necessary to keep the House. A very large number of buildings were constructed during the war, both on Crown land or on land acquired by the Crown and on privately owned land, for the purposes of the prosecution of the war. There were buildings of great variety, ranging from very small structures to large factories. The local authorities, who have custody of a number of Statutes like the Public Health Acts, the Ribbon Development Act and the Town and Country Planning Act, could have taken exception to where these buildings were placed, and to the kind of building, had there not been a war. But for reasons that are obvious to everyone they did not exercise their legal rights, and in consequence those rights have lapsed. Under the Statutes they are under an obligation to make an objection within six months or one year in most cases, but for the reasons I have already explained they did not take advantage of their legal position, and in consequence they are now stopped from doing so.
The first purpose of the Bill is to revive the rights of the local authorities to take exception to these buildings where they contravene the various Acts. It is reasonable that this should be done in the defence of the public interest; not only for good planning reasons but also for other reasons these buildings ought to be subjected to scrutiny. In many instances they contravene the Public Health Acts, in some cases they are exposed to a greater danger from fire than the Statutes allow, and in other instances they are in the wrong place. Therefore,


it seemed to the Government as, I believe, it was apparent to the last Government, that it was necessary for the rights of the local authorities in this regard to be revived. The first Clause of this Bill reinstates the local authorities in their former position, and entitles them to take exception to these buildings under the various Statutes provided for the purpose.
Many of these buildings, however, are extremely valuable. They were, in most cases, constructed at the expense of public funds, and it would be undesirable that they should be demolished for reasons that are not sufficiently serious, or, indeed, that any great expense should be incurred in altering them where they need alteration to conform to the Statutes. Although the Bill, when it becomes an Act, restores the rights of the local authorities it provides, at the same time, machinery whereby the Government and the public interest are protected against belated action in these cases. So, a five year limit is placed upon the time during which local authorities are entitled to exercise these reversionary rights. That five year limit is obviously necessary, because this sort of suspended right cannot be continued in perpetuity. The owners of these properties are entitled to know what their position is likely to be, and those desiring to purchase the properties are entitled to know what their obligations may be in the event of the local authorities stepping in. Therefore, a five year limit has been placed in the Bill. At the expiry of those five years all this property will be deemed to comply with the requirements of the various Statutes.
Under the existing law, if this Bill were not passed, the local authorities would take action in six months or one year, and in the event of their action being challenged the individual concerned would have the right to go to legal arbitration. But it did not seem to the Government that that was the proper procedure to apply in this instance. As I have said, a very large number of properties are affected, and the individuals concerned could not be regarded as principals owing to the war emergency, and local authorities could not be regarded as having been in default. It is not reasonable, therefore, in these circumstances, where there is disagreement between an interested party and a local authority, that the expenses of legal action should be incurred.
The Bill provides that where, there is a difference of opinion an appeal can be made to the Ministry of Health. The reason why the Ministry of Health is chosen in these circumstances is that at the end of the last war it was the Local Government Board which acted in this capacity, and the Ministry is a descendant of that Department. A large number of other Departments are also involved, but for the purpose of simplicity the Ministry of Health are designated by the Bill as the Ministry responsible for listening to, and deciding upon, appeals. The Ministry will be armed with two sets of authority. They will be entitled to determine whether the various Statutes have or have not been contravened and, if they have, what reasonable action could be taken to put the buildings in accordance with the Statutes. One of the reasons why the Billis somewhat technically framed is because Crown property has a peculiar relationship to other property. The House knows that property in the possession of the Crown is exempted from the operation of the Statutes, except in cases where the Statute expressly provides for the Crown to be included. As I have pointed out, a large number of these buildings were constructed on Crown land, or on land acquired by the Crown for the purposes of the war. It has always been good administrative practice for the Crown to consult the local authorities in these matters, but, as I say, it is not expressly bound to do so. The Crown may want to sell or lease many of these properties. At the end of the last war the rights of local authorities with respect to property possessed by the Crown were exercisable only in cases where the Crown actually intended to sell property. In this Bill, however, if the Crown sells property, or leases it for more than 10 years, the local authority is entitled to exercise the same rights of applying the Statutes to that property as in the cases of private property. The Bill brings Crown property in those categories into the same relationship as private property.
Those are the general provisions of the Bill. It is, I believe, not a controversial Measure. I think that there is no dispute between the two sides of the House on the matter, and though there are a number of points which properly fall to be considered in Committee, I feel that with that explanation the House will be wise to give


the Bill a harmonious and peaceful Second Reading.

3.31 p.m.

Mr. Willink: I am sure the whole House is grateful for the lucid, though perhaps somewhat abbreviated, explanation of the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman has given. As he said, it isa Bill which any Government, of whatever complexion, would have been bound to introduce in some form or other, and indeed for the earlier framing of this particular Bill I myself had some responsibility. It is of course the case that war necessitates construction of many buildings of a kind which no Government nor any responsible local authority could tolerate in ordinary times, but the range and scope of this Bill go far beyond buildings such as we should object to. It covers an enormous range—aerodromes in the wrong places, building repairs in which there has been bad technique, and the use of property which is not in accordance with town planning. I imagine a solicitor or business man who had been bombed out of his professional or business premises, and under the stress of war was carrying on in a residential street, would be affected by this Bill, because that would be a use in contravention of the law. So, at the end of the war period, which this Bill, unlike its predecessor can now define, theremust be machinery to clear up matters of this kind, and that machinery must be as businesslike and efficient as possible. It is most necessary that a man seeking to acquire business premises must know whether they are to be allowed to continue where they are, or in their present form, or what alterations, if any, will be demanded. So there must be this machinery, not least for the many cases to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, where the normal period for enforcement of the law has run out, and there must be some authority which can review the whole situation.
As I understand it, this difficulty may arise where work has been done by the Crown or on behalf of the Crown or at the request of the Crown on private initiative, but in almost every case it will have been done for a war purpose or because of some incident connected with the war, such, for example, as the bomb I referred to which made some person's premises uninhabitable. During the war,

for another reason in addition to those mentioned by the Minister, local authorities were in this difficulty; they could neither approve nor disapprove. If they disapproved, they would have been acting against the public interest and the war effort, and if they approved they would have been rendering something permanent under the existing law which they were only willing to tolerate as a temporary war measure.
We do not intend to oppose the Second Reading, but this is a Bill which needs to be examined with care to see whether the main principles are satisfactorily worked out, whether the machinery is satisfactory, whether there are omissions or unnecessary complications and whether the Bill ensures justice to all concerned. I think it is right that the war period, as denned, should be excluded, and I think the amendment of the law with regard to Crown property, where the land comes into the possession of an owner with a long-term interest, is also satisfactory. When one takes into account the enormous number of cases that will be within the scope of this Bill it is right that the right hon. Gentleman, with the assistance of his most able inspectors, should be the tribunal. I have given some examples, but another very typical example, I fancy, of works which will come under consideration will be the little workshop in the back garden or on private property. There will be innumerable instances of that and a still larger number of cases where work has been done in the repair of war damage which is not in accordance with good practice or building by-laws.
There are really two main points to which the House might well address it self. The first concerns the machinery for getting a decision on whether the use of the building is to be allowed to continue and on what terms, and the second is the law which is to govern the question of what is to happen if, after a certain period, the question still lies dormant and nothing has been done about it. It is right in the first case, I think, that the application should be to the appropriate local authority, except that, as we have passed into law the Town and Country Planning (Interim Development) Act, 1943, I think it is right that the Minister of Town and Country Planning should be enabled to assert that some


particular issue which has arisen is a national issue and should not be left to the local authority but should be brought to the right hon. Gentleman in the first place. There are two points about the machinery for getting a decision which I should like the Government to look into. The first is small and the second is more substantial. As regards the first, the Bill provides that notice has to be given of the applications made within 14 days of the receipt of the applications. But the Bill goes on to provide that the Minister, either generally or in a particular case, may give directions as to these notices. Fourteen days is a very short time and if there may be intervening procedure and directions in a particular case in the course of 14 days, I doubt whether it will be possible for these notices to be given in time. I have been wondering why it was necessary to reserve any power as to a particular direction for notice in a particular case, and whether it would not be satisfactory to leave out the words in Subsection (7) of Clause 2 and leave the notices to be generally provided for without that additional complication.
The more substantial point concerns the time for reaching a final decision on these matters. There is a strict time-table for the action of the local authority, but there is no time limit within which the right hon. Gentleman is to come to his decision. As I read the Bill, if there is an appeal from the local authority and it goes to the Minister of Health, Heaven knows when the question will be decided, and I should have thought there was good ground for considering most seriously whether there should not be some time at which, if the Minister has not come to a decision, the use would the deemed to be lawful. There is no need to emphasise the number of cases in which it is most important that decisions should be swiftly reached, and a Bill which provides for no time limit whatever is not, I feel, in satisfactory form, nor will it give due protection to many people of whom I am thinking, particularly commercial people, in regard to acquiring business premises which they need.
There there is the question raised by Clause 4, the limitation of time and the five years. I do not complain or criticise but the Minister dealt with the matter very briefly. It is not simply five years from the commencement of this Act. If there is any period during which the

Crown is in occupation after the end of the war it is added to that period of five years, but decisions can be reached on applications long before that period, and I think it is right that where local authorities have done nothing at all for five years, or more where the Crown has been in possession, any fault respecting the building bye-laws, or ribbon development or town planning which has been left dormant all that time, should be whitewashed at the end of so long a period. It would be unfair that something that was all unknown to the occupier should still remain liable to enforcing action.
So far, apart from these minor points, I have no criticism, but I think it is necessary to look a little further than the Government have looked in framing this Bill, and I do most seriously ask for a reply on two points, one of which may, as it seems to me, cast an unjust burden upon local authorities and the other cast an unjust burden on private persons. Taking the first case, there must be quite a number of cases in which wartime buildings do not comply with byelaws in that they are in front of a building or improvement line. The local authority, on an application, determines that the building may remain for only a limited period. There is an appeal and the Minister decides that the building shall be deemed to comply, thus overruling the local authority. May it not be that that determination by the Minister may cast upon the local authority at some future date when it has to acquire that property a burden of compensation which it would never have had to bear but for the two facts—that the building was put up for a war purpose and that the Government Department, overruling the local authority, had said that it was to be deemed to be in all respects a complying building? I should have thought there ought to be some provision that the added compensation falling to be paid in those circumstances should fall upon the Crown and not upon the local authority, for the reason, first, that the building came into existence for a national purpose and, second, that it was against the judgment of the local authority that the building was deemed under this Bill to be a building with no fault in it at all.
Let me give an example of where an unjust burden might be cast upon private


individuals. I think it is still the case that the Crown on withdrawing from the occupation of land can always, under the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, limit its liability to compensate for the use of the land to the value of the land. There must be countless cases in which a very small piece of land has been used by the Crown, let us say for the erection of a concrete pill-box. The Crown withdraws, pays the few shillings for the value of the land and leaves the pill-box on the land, saying, ''We have done all we heed under the law to compensate for the use of the land." The local authority says to the private owner that the pill-box must be removed, and the burden of removing a structure built by the Army for the most direct war purpose is cast upon the private owner of the land, costing him far more than the trifling sum which he has received as representing the value of that small piece of land. Perhaps an even more common example may arise with regard to air-raid shelters as to which, as it seems to me, the burden of destruction, removal and clearing up the land may now be thrown on to the private owner.
In both these cases, there seems to be a quite real risk that a charge, which clearly should bea national one, may fall, in the one case, on the local authority, and, in the other, on the private citizen. It does not matter whether such buildings have been brought into existence by the Government themselves, or whether they have come into existence in the interests of the war effort, but without direct Government action; I feel that there should not be any risk of the cost of putting these places right, from the point of view of land control, building by-laws, or ribbon development falling on the owner, at the discretion of a Government Department. I am not sure whether the consequences of this attempt to clear up this question have been worked out as far as they should be. Subject to this point, upon which I should be very glad to have a reply, and on which, if we do not have a satisfactory reply, there will have to be further consideration, we shall not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill.

347 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: There are one or two

points which I should like to put, because, I think, if the right hon. Gentleman answered them now it might prevent Amendments being put down in Committee. I agree that, although this is a very small Bill, it is a very complicated one. One has to read it a number of times before one can be clear on what the Government wish to do. The first question I would ask the right hon. Gentleman is this. I gathered from his speech that in most cases, where these contraventions had taken place—building by laws, bad planning and so on—had it not been for the war, the authorities would have had six months, or 12 months in which to object. Why is he giving them five years under this Bill in which to object? Why cannot the Government make up their minds speedily on whether this should be the rule or not? I cannot see that there is any good argument, now that the war is over, for a longer period being given to enable them to make up their minds whether a contravention is one which could be accepted.
The second point has already been mentioned by my right hon. and learned Friend the late Minister of Health. I entirely agree that Clause 1 (2) is a very difficult Subsection to get clear. There are 15 lines without one full stop, and heaven knows how many commas. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, who was very active in Opposition and who is so democratic in his outlook, whether he cannot bring some sort of pressure to bear on the very distinguished and highly-educated Parliamentary draftsmen, so that this kind of thing can be put down in language which the ordinary men and women, who sit on this side of the House, can understand. Then there is the question of the removal of these thousands of tons of concrete. No one wants planning more than I do, but I would like an assurance that if there are some hideous eyesores, which must be removed, there is nothing in this Bill which fixes liability for removal upon the owner, occupier or tenant of the land. The Bill seems to say that -if there is a contravention—a bad building, or something which would not be tolerated except for the war—and it is permitted to stay there for a period of five years, then ipso facto it is considered legal, and has in fact a claim to be left there, and there is no authority which can order its removal. Why is it


necessary—and I may be wrong over this point—if there is a resolution of a planning authority in operation, that the positive action must come from the planning authority?

Mr. Bevan: Mr. Bevan indicated dissent.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I hope I am wrong. We want to ginger up the planning authority, and make it a good planning authority, and I feel that if they are lazy in carrying out their duty, then the owner or tenant of the land should not be penalised.

Mr. Bevan: As the Bill is drafted at the moment, the planning authority has no right of initiating action. The action is initiated by private persons, who have an interest in the appropriate factory, or the local authority itself. It has still to be considered whether the planning authority, the Minister of Town and Country Planning in this case, ought not to have the right of independent action, and that seems an appropriate point to consider in Committee.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: That being so, I do not propose at this stage to develop that argument, and I close by thanking the right hon Gentleman, who has been surprisingly helpful.

3.53 p.m.

Mr. Bossom: I think this Measure is a useful one. It looks after the interests of the public, and is supposed to look after the industrial interests of the country as well. For that reason I think it is important. As my hon. and gallant Friend, who has just sat down, remarked, I feel that this Bill is a wonderful example of something which one cannot understand. It is really most obscure. I am sure that the Minister, when he read it, must have wondered what his draftsmen had been doing. Consequently, I would make the plea that, in Bills of this nature, there should be definitely included a clearer statement of the Measure's intention which normal people could understand. Drafting has reached the stage where one has to read a Bill a dozen times before one can begin to find out what it means, and even then there is often much uncertainty.
My next point is that this Measure is strictly a machinery Bill, and, as such, I think it is bound to work almost entirely in one way. For instance, the owner of

a large building will wish to use it as a factory for production and employment purposes, and he will apply to his local authority, and ask that local authority to make a determination—i.e., what are his liabilities. Yet every hon. Member is receiving requests every day from local authorities to get technical assistants to help them to do such work, but if a technical determination or decision has to be made by one of these technical officials and yet he physically does not have time to make it, it is considered that this application has been refused and that means that it goes to the Minister of Health. There will in consequence be such a volume of this sort of work thrown on the Minister of Health, that it will make it impossible for him to give decisions with any degree of speed. There will be delay and accumulation of work, and industrialists will be held up indefinitely. I am sure that no Minister of Health has ever come to this House with a bigger programme of things to do than the present Minister. How then are great numbers of these wartime factories to be made available? If we are to revive trade and aid employment, good factories must be available. Let us see if there is not some way of overcoming this. The idea of five years possibility for local authorities is not satisfactory. It is much too long and yet there is no limit to the time permitted for the Minister of Health for him to make his decision. In other Departments too there is shortage of technical staff; only last week the Minister of Town and Country Planning, speaking at the Building Congress, said he had sometimes to wait nine days before he could dictate a reply to a letter. If that is the present situation, what will it be in a few months' time when all the new legislation is in force? I ask the Minister to give this matter of time delay very serious attention.
Another point is the one raised by my right hon. and learned Friend. Facing the River Medway there are a number of pillboxes. In one instance, the soldiers put up a pillbox, and it was not high enough. They put 4 ft. more of solid concrete under it, and I took the cost of it, which worked out at between £400 and £500 to build. Is it not possible today for the Government to say, "We will buy the land occupied by that pillbox," and not remove that pillbox. The price may be £2—and yet the Town and


Country Planning Committee, and the local authority may say to the owner: "You have to remove these pillboxes; they are not a beautiful asset to our charming Medway, and they will have to be taken away." The owner of the land upon which the pillboxes have been erected will have to go to great expense to get these things removed, or they are going to be an eyesore for a long time. Will the Minister let us know if the case is as I have stated, or if there is any way of protecting the owner of such land from that undue expense? There may be some means of removing that risk or charge from the owner, and I would like to know what it is. Generally speaking, the Bill is essential, but I would like to see the time that it will take to put it into execution much shorter than that now envisaged and I hope the Minister will see to it that owners will not be put to expenses due to such anomalies for which they are in no way responsible.

Mr. Willink: I think that the' hon. Member has put the same point as myself, but I want to see that the Government understand the point in the same way. He referred to the Government buying land on which a pillbox stood. If that happened I understand that there is nothing that can be done by the local authority to compel its removal. But in the case where the Government did not buy the land but withdrew without buying it, I would think that the question might well arise.

Mr. Bossom: In the case I referred to the Government did not buy the land. The military marched in, and set to work without consent from anyone. Now, I believe, the Government have the right today to acquire the land, pay for it, and then the planning authority can require the owner to remove these pillboxes.

Mr. Bevan: This Bill does not in fact deal with structures of that sort. It obviously is necessary that, in some way or another, the Government will have to deal with the question of how military buildings are to be removed, but neither the point raised by the hon. Member or the right hon. Gentleman, in fact, come within the purview of this Bill.

Mr. Bossom: Would it not be better to make that point clear in the Bill? If

my right hon. Friend and I both believe that this is covered by the Bill, others will have the same impression. I think it would be desirable to put that clearly in the Bill, under some arrangement, when we come to a later stage. I do implore the Minister when he is making these technical Bills to have them made understandable to the average individual.

4.0 p.m.

Captain Marples: I wish to raise a practical point concerning a matter from which I have suffered a great deal in the past. It appears that under this Bill, as I read it—I am not sure that I read it correctly—the sole tribunal will be either the authority under the Town and Country Planning Act or the Minister of Health himself. My personal experience of local authorities and of the Ministry of Health on the rare occasions I have had to deal with the Department, in a minor matter, is that they have been extremely fair and reasonable. But I urge the Minister of Health to consider inserting some sort of safeguard, whereby the individual builder or applicant may have the right of appeal where he is aggrieved. In the same way as the Minister of Agriculture has set up independent tribunals, it would be a good thing if the Minister of Health set up similar tribunals in cases in which the applicant was aggrieved. I had a case in connection with the L.C.C. which looked like being extremely difficult, but the old and invaluable method of taking someone out to lunch worked again. It should not be like that. There should be an independent tribunal, and I ask the Minister to consider that point.
There is a grave suspicion among builders that they do not always get fair treatment from the Ministry of Health. I think it is an unjustified suspicion, but, at the same time, if they had a right of appeal it would remove that suspicion. I suggest that a tribunal of three, consisting of a solicitor, someone recommended by the Royal Institute of British Architects, and a member of the right hon. Gentleman's own Ministry, should consider any cases in which hardship has been involved. I agree that it is extremely necessary that there should be effective town planning.

4.2 p.m.

Mr. Berry: I realise that I have to cast myself on the mercy of the House in making my maiden speech


on a rather abstruse subject. I would reinforce the plea that the Bill should be much simplified. That there is a difference of interpretation between the present Minister of Health and the former Minister of Health is an illustration of the difficulty which faces ordinary people reading a Bill of this description. It leads one to suspect that there is something in the suggestion occasionally made that laws are drafted by lawyers for the sake of lawyers. Farbe it from me to endorse such a suggestion; I only pass it on. Those of us with experience of building after the last war know the difficulties there were, and how decisions were given in varying ways. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for bringing in this Bill, which will do something to clarify the situation.
Our building by-laws, whether they be the code of the L.C.C. to the establishment of which I had the pleasure of giving some years of my life, or whether they be the other building by-laws throughout the country, which are, I am told, very largely based on the by-laws of the L.C.C, must be, maintained, as far as possible, for the health and well-being of our people. The justification for these by-laws has been the greatly improved health of our people. Every Member of this House will at least pay lip service to town planning. It is lamentable that the exigencies of wartime have caused town planning ideas to be hopelessly smashed. One regrets it, but one bows to the necessities of the situation. If buildings are to be allowed to remain we may find ourselves saddled for a number of years with buildings, and arrangements of land which are the negation of town planning.
I reinforce the plea of the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom) that decisions should be given as speedily as possible. It used to be the case in connection with certain applications that if a decision were not given within a limited period, assent could be assumed. The situation to-day is the exact reverse of that. I can bear out the suggestion that, frequently, when applications were too numerous, and it was not possible to consider them properly, an applicant was given a refusal, with an intimation that he might come back again. That entails a real hardship on applicants. Today, we want to help those who are in a position to build and who have licences to build, to proceed

as speedily as possible, not only for the sake of the building trade, but for the sake of the improvement which their buildings would represent. I urge upon the Minister to arrange that when appeals come to his Department they shall be dealt with as speedily as possible. We want to avoid the disgruntled applicant, whether he be concerned with a local authority or with a Government Department, for when people are disgruntled they sometimes attribute motives which. possibly do not exist. I am sorry to hear the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Captain Marples) that the present day means of speeding a matter in connection with the L.C.C. is to take somebody out to lunch. When I had the honour to be Chairman of the Town Planning Committee of the L.C.C., that was the last thing which would have helped towards a solution..

4.8 p.m.

Commander Galbraith: We have had from the Minister of Health a very definite statement of the matters to which this Bill attaches. He assured us that it would not attach to such a case as that put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Croydon (Mr. Willink), and later referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom). Is the Minister quite certain that such a case cannot arise under planning regulations? Would he, in any event, make absolutely certain that when we come to the Committee stage a point is made about this? May we incidentally take this opportunity to extend to the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Mr. Berry) the congratulations of the House on the very able manner in which he made his case? I am certain that all of us will look forward to hearing him speak on many future occasions.

4.9 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Key): The fact that this Bill has been referred to as rather complicated and technical will, I hope, be accepted by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen as a reason for being lenient to me on this, the first occasion on which I speak from this Box. I am not at all certain that I can speak with the same sort of confidence as my hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Mr. Berry) on this matter, but, in fact, there seems


very little left, to which to reply, many of the points having been dealt with already. I will deal first with the point raised by the right hon. and learned Member for North Croydon (Mr. Willink) with regard to the burden which is likely to fall upon local authorities as a result of the decisions which the Minister may make in overruling the decisions of the local authorities. If these buildings, etc., remain in existence for any considerable period of time, the local authority might, in some cases at least, be receiving some benefit from them. Also, the mere fact that at some future time this matter would have to be dealt with under town and country planning powers would surely be one of the main considerations taken into account by the Ministry before making their decision whether or not to act in opposition to the decision which the local authority had made.

Mr. Bossom: If a building is under consideration it would probably not be rented or sold, because the owner of it could not sell it, and nobody else would buy it and go to the expense of equipping it. Therefore, would the local authority in those circumstances be getting anything from the building during that time?

Mr. Key: Quite obviously in that case they would get no income from it at all, but if the place was not in occupation nobody could have a grievance. In coming to a decision, the mere fact that at some future time a local authority might be involved in fairly heavy expense in compensation, would be one of the factors which the Ministry would have to take into account very carefully indeed, before making a decision in contradiction of the local authority's. As has already been said, we are definitely advised that pillboxes and air raid shelters do not come within the purview of this Bill, but I can promise quite definitely to make careful inquiries with regard to that point; it is a point that can be dealt with in the Committee stage if necessary. In regard to the period that must elapse after what is technically called the war period—the period of five years in which these applications are to be dealt with—we must take into account the difficulties of the local authorities, the fact that they will, for some time at least, be rather short of staff. A considerable number of buildings, etc.,

have been erected during the war and land has been put to wartime uses. It would, therefore, be unwise to limit the period too severely in which the local authority would have the opportunity to operate. Moreover, the period during which various Government Departments might be getting rid of factories, and so forth, that have been erected, would probably extend beyond the six months or twelve months normally applicable in these cases; five years does not seem to be at all too long a period for the general clearing up of the difficulties in this matter, and for the transfer of property to other people from the Crown.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: The hon. Gentle man will appreciate that we on this side understand the need for an extension of the period, but five years is a very long extension. I do not know whether he would consider that between now and the Committee stage.

Mr. Key: Of course, the period could be considered in Committee, but knowing something about the capacity of local authorities to deal with these matters, I very much doubt whether five years is too long a period for the job to be adequately done.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: We were basing our argument upon the necessity for people feeling that they knew where they were. That has already been met by the right hon. Gentleman, who said that occupiers of houses must know whether they are to be cleared away or not. That is really the basis of our pressing this particular point.

Mr. Key: The Bill definitely lays down that, if anyone is in any doubt, and makes application to, the local authority, the local authority must, within 14 days, give notice to all people concerned. If, within a period of two months, a local authority has not made a decision the individual then has power to apply to the Minister for the decision to be made. So that if there is any delay on the part of a local authority, there can be expedition on the part of the Ministry in dealing with cases with which local authorities have failed to deal properly. It is for that reason, too, that it would be unwise to set up some sort of independent tribunal which had to be composed of people outside the Ministry, because it seems to me that we


shall get far more expedition in dealing with these appeals from the local authority, if they are dealt with in the normal way of business in the Ministry of Health, than by having an independent tribunal to deal with these individual cases.

Captain Marples: I did not mean to suggest an independent tribunal to deal with the cases instead of the Ministry of Health. I meant a tribunal to whom application could be made by an applicant who is dissatisfied with the decision.

Mr. Key: Where is there to be an end to these appeals? If you are going to appeal from the local authority to the Ministry and from the Ministry to the tribunal, where is the thing to end? Surely, if we provide some sort of appeal from the authority which is finally responsible for the operation of the building byelaws and the planning controls, to a superior authority, we have provided all the appeal that is necessary in order to get these matters adequately and properly considered and determined. There may be many individual points to be dealt with in Committee on a matter of this sort, but I think, from the discussion which we have had, the Bill has been accepted as something which really needs to be done, and, in those circumstances, I look forward to the Committee stage when all the individual points which have been raised can be dealt with.

Mr. Willink: Before the Parliamentary Secretary concludes, can he say whether consideration will be given to what I think is a point of some importance, namely, that as so strict a time limit has been imposed in the Bill for the operation of the local authority, the time given for the decision of the Ministry should not be left at large?

Mr. Key: Certainly, consideration will be given to that point before the Committee stage.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL DEFENCE (SUSPENSION OF POWERS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.17 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
As its Title indicates, the purpose of this Bill is to suspend certain operative provisions of the Civil Defence Acts, and I imagine that very little detailed explanation is necessary to show the necessity for the Bill. In 1937 it became necessary to pass the Air Raid Precautions Act, the first of its kind which dealt with the powers and duties of local authorities in relation to the protection of persons and property from injury or damage in the event of hostile attack from the air. As the then Secretary of State (Sir Samuel Hoare, new Lord Templewood) observed in communicating the text of the Act to the local authorities who were called upon to shoulder the burden,
Although everyone must profoundly deplore the need for the measures contemplated, the Secretary of State is confident that local authorities will proceed with energy and determination to carry out the vitally important duties with which they are charged.
That was on 28th January, 1938. The ramifications of those duties appear from the regulations made shortly afterwards to define the matters for which provision was to be made. There were no less than 17 headings of subjects for inclusion in the schemes, which included the giving of instructions and advice to the public; the arrangements for the dissemination of air raid warnings; for the collection and distribution of information and reports of air raid casualties and damage; the organisation of the various civil defence services, air raid wardens, first-aid parties, first-aid posts, casualty clearing stations, ambulance services; arrangements for the clearance of debris; for the detection of poison gas; for decontamination; for the repair of highways, streets, public places and sewers; and so on. They cover practically the whole range of the local government services.
The regulations were made on' 10th March, 1.938. Within a year the international situation had gone from bad to worse. The Government of the day realised that although local authorities


had applied themselves with vigour to the task, there was much to do to perfect air raid precautions. Accordingly, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) on 23rd March, 1939, introduced a Measure which some 15 weeks later became law as the Civil Defence Act, 1939. It was an omnibus Measure, the general scope of which is described in the schedule to the Measure now before the House. As the right hon. Gentleman said in his Second Reading speech:
There is nothing in the Bill with which any sponsor could find grounds of satisfaction. Every Clause, almost every line of it, reflects the anxious times in which we live."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th April, 1939; Vol. 345. c. 2633.]
One of the main objects of the Measure was to extend the provision of shelter against air attack. Whereas the earlier Act had affected local authorities' duties to provide shelters and train employees in first aid, anti-gas measures and fire fighting were now placed on industry and commerce. A general duty was also laid on factories, mines and public utility, undertakings in regard to the obscuration of lights and the camouflage of premises. The two Acts provided the working basis for the protection of life and property against the effects of enemy attack.
The new provisions could barely begin to operate before war broke out. The A.R.P. Department of the Home Office, and the Ministry of Home Security which succeeded it on the outbreak of war, provided the local authorities and industry with guidance and technical information. All concerned—local authorities, industry, trade unions, the general public—co-operated throughout the years of war to produce that fine organisation which by general consent stood up well to all the tests imposed upon it. I am quite sure the House would wish to recognise this afternoon the great value of the work that was done by a very wide range of citizens, many of whom were not available for active service overseas, who gave up days and nights to training themselves for this service, and, when the call came in circumstances of very great danger, proved adequate to the responsibilities that they assumed, many of them voluntarily. Very happily for all of us who

remained in this country, these tests, heavy as they were—and nothing I say this afternoon must be taken as belittlingthem—inflicting heavy casualties and great damage, were much less severe than the gruelling ordeal to which the enemy was subjected by the Allied air forces. Our air forces first took heavy toll of the Luftwaffe. The enemy then developed the V.1 and V.2 weapons. In our turn we developed new weapons of attack, including saturation raids, and culminating in the atomic bomb used against Japan.
As a result of all that has happened since 1939, it is probably true to say that in many respects the technique of civil defence, highly developed as it has been in this country, is now out of date. What we now need is time to bring it up to date, and that is the reason for this Bill. If we have to carry on with civil defence we do not want to be engaged in the task of trying to win the last war in less time than it actually took. We do desire to have a service that is designed to deal with what we shall probably have to meet in the future. Those who drafted the Civil Defence Acts had to think in terms of a war that was to come. Naturally, the Acts contained no provision for the automatic termination, when hostilities ceased, of the obligations which had to be imposed on the community at large when war seemed imminent. As a consequence, the duties and obligations to prepare air raid precautions schemes, to provide shelters, to train workpeople and others, are continuing liabilities still in force and technically enforceable. Having regard to the state of our technical knowledge, it would be foolish and unprofitable to go on applying the Acts without taking account of the changed circumstances. Not only would there be a waste of money and labour, but a great strain would be put on local authorities who have not only to wind up the existing wartime organisation of civil defence, but have immense responsibilities to provide housing and bring about a restoration of normal life.
No one would be more pleased than the Government if, instead of suspending the operative provisions of the Civil Defence Acts as this Bill proposes to do, it were possible to repeal those Acts. It would mean that the Government were satisfied that the risk of air attack on this country


had passed for all time. Unhappily, the Government cannot yet take that view. While for the reasons indicated the temporary suspension of the operative provisions of the Civil Defence Acts is desirable, it is important that the enactment of the Measure should not give rise to an impression that civil defence and the part which the local authorities have played in it are of historical interest only, or that civil defence is not still an essential part of the social life and obligations of the country. So long as this country is liable to attack, the Government regard it as essential a duty to make adequate arrangements for the protection and rescue of the civil population, for the mitigation of the effects of air attack and for the restoration of industries and services after attack, as it is that the fighting services should be maintained for the active defence of the country. Holding these views, the Government have directed that a careful study should be made of the effects of the most recent forms of air attack, and that the civil defence organisation as hitherto known should be reviewed to sec what adaptations and modifications are needed to meet the requirements of the country, should the country unhappily again be attacked from the air. Missions have been sent to Germany to study the effects of saturation raids of all kinds, the structural provision there for the protection of the population and the way in which the German services functioned. Scientists are now in Japan investigating the effects of the Nagasaki and Hiroshima raids. We shall in due course know a great deal more about civil defence requirements, the standard of shelter that ought to be provided and the type of organisation best fitted to deal with air attack.
While these investigations are proceeding, local authorities will, among their many pre-occupations, continue to give their invaluable assistance in the orderly winding up of the great civil defence organisation created during the war. The authorities are rightly conscious of the great part which they have played, and the Government are sure that when local government is again called upon to take its share in national defence, if it should unfortunately again be called upon, it will not be found wanting. Until a new start is made spontaneous movements will probably develop amongst the ex-members of the civil defence organisation in many

parts of the country to form their own social clubs. I have already received from various parts of the country information that men and women who had banded together in this great organisation during wartime desire to keep together, and when I last visited my own constituency I was approached by some of the men there who are anxious to from a club in which they will not only be able to talk over the past but receive some knowledge of what possible requirements in the future might be.
This is all to the good, and no doubt local authorities will look favourably upon these ventures, with a view to their developing later on into Civil Defence centres at which lectures and training in new methods can be given to meet any future requirements. By such methods, the advantages of past operational experience in raids, and of continuity, will not be lost. When plans for a new organisation can be drawn up and a time comes to recruit and train volunteers for the new services, there will be a nucleus of potential officers, non-commissioned officers and instructors at hand. I do make a very earnest appeal this afternoon to the people that took such an outstanding part in the defence of the country during the war years, to keep together, especially the keenest of them, so that they may be there, should they again be required, as a very effective nucleus on which the future service can be built.
Clause 1 of the Bill provides for the suspension of the obligation imposed on certain local authorities to prepare and submit A.R.P. schemes, and for the termination of the suspension by Order in Council if it should become necessary. It is quite evident that to attempt at the present time to enforce these various requirements might seriously retard many measures of reconstruction and recovery. I doubt whether, if we took action in the courts or elsewhere, any penalties would be inflicted, in present circumstances. Therefore we propose that this suspension should take place.
Clause 2 provides for the suspension of the provisions of the Civil Defence Act, 1939, to the extent specified in the Schedule, and again for their revival by Order in Council. Clause 3 provides that Orders in Council made under the Bill should be laid before Parliament, and for the application of the Negative Resolution Procedure to them. The Schedule,


which in this case is really the most important and informative part of the Measure, describes the provisions of the 1939 Act which are to be suspended. We have purposely framed it in general words. The Bill, in general, leaves operative those provisions which have a present or continuing importance; for example, for safeguarding persons in respect of acts done, and for maintaining the machinery for undoing arrangements made during the war. There are others which, even if not fully up to date in their wording, do not require immediate action to be taken by anyone and accordingly can be left for consideration when decisions have been taken as to future policy.
It is proposed not to suspend Part VII of the Act of 1939, at the express request of the Minister of Health, who requires it for the continued operation of the Emergency Medical Service. The House will probably wish to know the reasons why the Government propose that, when the time comes to revive the suspended provisions, the procedure proposed is by way of Orders in Council instead of by substantive legislation. The explanation is that it is not contemplated that the revival of the suspended provisions shall be dependent upon the international situation or upon domestic politics. As and when the existing organisation in all its ramifications is reviewed and it is possible to prescribe a new technique, in the light of the experience of the hostilities now ended and of intelligence as to any new form of attack that seems possible, it is intended that the process of rebuilding Civil Defence within the framework of legislation now sanctioned, shall begin again in a quiet and orderly fashion.
For that reason, for example, it is proposed in the Bill that an Order under Clause 3 may be made generally or in relation to any area, and either in relation to all provisions of the Civil Defence Act, 1939, or in relation to any particular provisions. It seems to the Government that it would be better to proceed piecemeal and gradually, than to wait until guidance can be given upon every aspect. It would be wrong to take up the time of the House by introducing a Bill every time a particular aspect of Civil Defence had been surveyed and the Government were satisfied that the relevant provision of the Civil Defence Acts could be

brought into operation. Hence the adoption of the Order in Council Procedure.
Naturally, if any radical alteration in the whole system of Civil Defence were found to be necessary or advisable, the Government would not attempt to proceed by way of Orders in Council, but would come to Parliament with new proposals in the ordinary way. Representative associations of local authorities have been told in general terms of the proposals which are now before the House, and the proposals seem to command general support in that quarter. I ask the House to give a Second Reading to the Bill to suspend the powers that are enumerated in it and that were granted to the Home Office, the Ministry of Home Security and the local authorities under the two Acts which I have cited.
No-one would be more happy than myself to find that it was never necessary again to proceed in this matter of preparing for Civil Defence. We have seen the destruction of our towns and cities, and death coming down upon our villages, in a way that has never happened before in the history of this country. None of us desires to see it again. What we hope is that the organisations now being prepared to deal with the future peace of the world may be effective; but, after all, they may involve us in playing our part and the possibility of being involved in some future struggle. While we hope and pray that may not be so, I am sure that every Member of the House will feel that it will be necessary for us, for some time to come at least, to watch very carefully and to see that we are fully prepared to meet anything that may come upon us.

4.38 p.m.

Mr. Osbert Peake: We are much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the clear exposition he has given us of the effect of the Bill. My hon. Friends have been scolded, if not mildly chastised, in some quarters of the Press over the weekend for not presenting a more vigorous opposition to Measures introduced by His Majesty's Government, but with the best will in the world, I am afraid that I can find nothing in the Bill which I can oppose. Glancing at the Clauses we see that Clause I provides that no air raid precautions scheme shall be prepared or submitted during the currency of the Bill. Clause II, which is expounded in detail in the Schedule, says


that such things as power to construct or provide air raid shelters shall be suspended and that no requirement which relates to the obscuration of lights and to camouflage shall apply during the said period. It is impossible for His Majesty's Opposition to take any exception to provisions of that character.
I should, however, like to associate myself with the tribute which the right hon. Gentleman paid to the Civil Defence Services as a whole and on this occasion I think it is appropriate that I should pay my tribute, as the right hon. Gentleman did himself, to the great administrative genius of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson). From 1938 until the beginning of the blitz in 1940, he devoted all hours of the day and the night to building up this great organisation, which, when the struggle came in September, 1940, met all the calls made upon it. I also welcome what the right hon. Gentleman has said in relation to the continuation of study and research on this matter of Civil Defence. It is, obviously, very important. We all hope, as he does, that we shall not be again engaged in war, but it is obviously vitally important that this country should have up-to-date research in Civil Defence methods.
I should also like to say how much I agree with the provisions in the Bill for resuming Civil Defence Measures by Order in Council, if such resumption becomes necessary. This is the fourth arm of modern warfare and it is vitally important that all parties in this country should be agreed as to the necessity for the maintenance of all our forces, whether they be situated on sea, or land, or in the air. Therefore, on this occasion, I am afraid I must disappoint our critics in the Press and say that there is nothing in the Bill to which I can take any exception at all.

Mr. Guy: May I ask the Minister if he will explain the reference in Clause 3 to forty days as the period during which Orders may be made the subject of a Prayer?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Oliver): The forty days to which my hon. Friend refers is the common form in which the provision is made that an Order must be laid before both Houses of Parliament for that period. I know of no exception to that rule. It

becomes operative from the day on which the Order is made.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. Pargiter: I think we shall all agree that it is unfortunate that we are able to suspend the operation of only part of the Civil Defence law, at this stage. Of more interest than what is contained in the Bill is the statement of my right hon. Friend with regard to the future. I am sure that the majority of local authorities will be glad to have some guidance, as soon as they can possibly get it, of the future requirements of Civil Defence. They now have an organisation which is in a state of suspended animation. In many cases people have grown up with Civil Defence, and have developed organising ability in connection with the population. Much of this ability is in danger of being dispersed, so we hope that the Government will come to some interim decision as soon as possible.
One point, not mentioned in the Bill, is that of the continuation or organisation of Civil Defence clubs in order to provide a nucleus for a Civil Defence organisation, whatever form this may have to take. This nucleus should be self-supporting as far as possible, but I think the Government should make some provision for such clubs, where people are willing to form them and have buildings or funds available. The Government ought to assist to some extent in the initial formation of clubs and in the expense incurred, as well as in obtaining people to give lectures. In some districts suitable buildings will be available and in other places they will not because the buildings will be wanted for other purposes. I hope the Government will regard this as an interim measure in Civil Defence and will encourage these clubs to function so that, although the clubs may be subject to certain rules, the nucleus to which I referred will, in fact, be there.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Oliver: The House will agree generally with my hon. Friend's suggestion that local authorities would like to know, at the earliest possible date, what the Civil Defence of the future is likely to be. I have no doubt that most of us would like to know if we are to have Civil Defence at all, or whether it might be abolished, but it would be futile at this stage to speculate. The matter is under consideration. The next few


months will be of vital importance, and the subsequent policy of the Government must be determined by the research and inquiries which are now taking place. Immediately information one way or the other can be imparted, it will be. As to social clubs, before any steps can be taken with regard to Government support it will be necessary to ascertain what measure of local support there would be for such clubs. At this stage it would be impossible to say that any financial assistance could be given.

Colonel Oliver Stanley: Will the hon. Gentleman give the whole House the advantage of hearing what he is saying?

Mr. Oliver: I am sorry. It will be necessary to find out to what degree the social club idea would be popular among Civil Defence workers. Until we know, it will be impossible to formulate any policy.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for Thursday.—[Mr. Pearson.]

Orders of the Day — BANK OF ENGLAND [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to bring the capital stock of the Bank of England into public ownership and bring the Bank under public control, to make provision with respect to the relations between the Treasury, the Bank of England, and other banks and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient—

(a) to authorise the Treasury to issue to holders of capital stock of the Bank of Eng land (hereinafter referred to as 'Bank stock'), in exchange for Bank stock held by them, such an amount of stock (herein after referred to as 'Government stock') bearing interest at the rate of three per cent. per annum that the sum payable annually by way of interest thereon will be equal to the average annual gross dividend declared during the period of twenty years immediately preceding the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and forty-five, upon the amount of Bank stock held;
(b) to authorise the charge on the Consolidated Fund of the principal of and interest on the Government stock, and any expenses incurred in connection with its issue or redemption and any remuneration payable in respect of its management;
(c) to authorise the Treasury, for the purpose of providing any sums required to re-

deem the Government stock, to raise money in any manner in which they are authorised to raise money under the National Loans Act, 1939;
(d) to authorise the payment into the Exchequer of sums paid by the Bank of England to the Treasury in lieu of dividends on Bank Stock, and to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of sums so paid into the Exchequer and the application of sums so issued in payment of interest otherwise payable out of the permanent annual charge for the national debt."

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — WATER (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

Resolution reported:

"That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for the conservation of water resources and for water supplies in Scotland and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in the exercise of his functions under the said Act."

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — REQUISITIONED INDUSTRIAL PREMISES (RELEASE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Pearson.]

4.50 p.m.

Mr. Sidney Shephard: The subject I am raising tonight is the continued requisition of industrial premises by Government Departments. I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade who, I understand, is to reply, is not here, but I am sure that it is not through discourtesy on his part. The present position is causing grave anxiety to industry, and it is high time the Government made a statement giving some indication of when they will release all the industrial premises they now occupy. I put down a Question on 21st August asking the President of the Board of Trade how many square feet of industrial floor space had been requisitioned by the Government during the war, and how much had been returned to industry since V-Day. The answer was that the Government had requisitioned 150,000,000 square feet of industrial space, that by the end of July they were in process of returning 8,000,000, and that by the end of July they had returned 4,000,000. In


order to ascertain what further progress was being made, I put a similar Question down in October, and in reply I was told that the Government were still in possession at the end of September of 138,000,000 square feet of industrial space.
That answer led me to believe that this matter was not being treated with the urgency that it demanded. We hear a good deal from the Government of the need of getting industry going at full speed. We have heard in the House a good deal about the need for labour and raw materials, for without them industry cannot function. It is equally true to say that with labour and raw materials but without manufacturing space industry cannot function. Government Departments are still in possession of vast areas of floor space capable of employing large numbers of workers. To give some idea of what that space means in terms of employment, the Board of Trade recently announced that they had handed over to civilian industry117 war factories with floor space of .35,000,000 ft., and that these factories would be capable of employing 220,000 workers. If we can take that as a basis, it means that the 138,000,000 ft. that the Government were in possession of at the end of September would provide work for something in the region of 900,000 men.
The chief offenders, if I may so describe them, are the Service Ministries and the Ministry of Supply and Aircraft Production. At the end of September the Admiralty were in possession of 22,000,000 feet, the Ministry of Supply and Aircraft Production of 21,500,000, and the Air Ministry of 8,250,000 feet. Although I put down a Question to the Secretary of State for War, he was unable to supply me with any figures, but it is obvious that the War Department has a very substantial area. This may be a difficult problem, but it must be tackled with the same urgency as the supply of labour and raw materials. While the problem remains, there are two aspects of vital importance. The first is that civilian production is being retarded, and the second, which is far worse, is that many employers will be unable to fulfil their reinstatement obligations to the men who are coming back to them from the Forces. I want to be fair to the President of the Board of Trade because he is only the requisitioning and derequisitioning authority. He

only requisitions at the request of another Ministry, and he obviously cannot derequisition unless that Ministry is prepared to vacate the premises. The Service Ministries are notoriously unsympathetic to anything which is outside their own sphere. I know that if one approaches them, the usual answer is that they can do nothing unless they have alternative accommodation. The onus is then thrown back on the Board of Trade, who naturally at this stage are not willing to requisition further premises, so that the position remains as it is.
I understand that the Air Ministry have allocated certain airfields and hangars for storage purposes. That is a step in the right direction, and I would like the President of the Board of Trade to consider whether some use cannot be made of the redundant Royal Ordnance factories. Many of them are on a care and maintenance basis, and I am sure that they are very suitable for this purpose. It is the responsibility of the Board of Trade to get peace-time industry functioning at its highest level, and I want to put three questions to the Minister who will reply. I do not know who he will be, but presumably somebody must reply.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I am sure that the hon. Member will realise that we have reached this stage of the day's proceedings earlier than anyone anticipated. I am making a careful note for my right hon. and learned Friend, and we are in communication with the Department. I hope that someone will be here, and if he can read my writing he will endeavour to reply to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Shephard: I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman says. I said at the outset that I knew it was not a question of discourtesy. In fact, I had a word with the Minister before the House sat. These are the three questions to which I should like an answer: First, will the tempo of derequisitioning be accelerated? Second, will pressure be brought to bear on those Ministries which are reactionary in this matter? Third, will the President give us an approximate date when the whole of requisitioned industrial premises will be vacated by Government Departments and returned to industry?

Colonel Oliver Stanley: On a point of Order. May I ask what


steps we can take to get a Minister here? It must have been obvious to hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench for some time that the Motion for the Adjournment would soon be moved. My hon. Friend has been talking for ten minutes, and it is turning these proceedings into a farce if a representative of the Ministry cannot be here.

Captain Prescott: Further to that point of Order. The Parliamentary Private Secretary to the President of the Board of Trade was here a few minutes ago. Was an indication sent to the President that the ordinary proceedings of the House were about to terminate?

Mr. Ede: My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury had anticipated that there would be considerable opposition to the Bank of England Money Resolution. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) earlier indicated that some attention is paid by hon. Gentlemen opposite to the criticism of their behaviour in letting Government business get through quickly, and we anticipated that, while he found himself unable to oppose the Bill which I previously submitted, there would be some prolonged discussion on the Bank of England Money Resolution. The means by which we are endeavouring to get a representative of the Board of Trade here is to ask for him over the telephone. I have every reason to believe that he will not be long delayed. In the meantime, I am taking as full a note as possible, and I hope we may be able to proceed with the Debate on that assurance.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: I rise to support the request which has been made by the hon. Member who opened the Debate because this matter, apart from the Party point of view, is of great importance to the industrial life of this nation. I come from an area—Stoke-on-Trent—where normally we produce all kinds of earthenware and china. During the war a great many of our premises were requisitioned for various war purposes, and particularly for storing goods. We were able to divert much of the labour previously employed in the pottery industry into the production of munitions of war, and that both provided work for the people, and enabled the

floor space to be available for other purposes. Now that production in the war factories is no longer necessary, people are most anxious to get back into civilian production, and in my area, manufacturers are most anxious to get back into the production of earthenware and china. In fact, a local manufacturer came to see me during the weekend, and explained his difficulties in the production of glazed tiles, which we shall want in great numbers for housing purposes, in the next few weeks and months, and possibly for years ahead. He asked me to make most urgent representations to the Government on this matter.
As the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Shephard) has said, Questions have been asked from time to time, in this House, and the Prime Minister gave us a statement in which he expressed the hope that, by the end of the year, there would be encouraging news to the effect that much industrial space would be released. Indeed, he said that nothing would stand in the way of the Government's freeing much of the factory space which is now not used. He said that goods would even be dumped in the open fields—at least I gather that he said so—and that the greatest urgency would be applied to the problem, but I gathered that there were difficulties of transportation and so on. I urge that this is a matter of great moment in the turnover from wartime to peacetime economy. Some of our factories have been closed down, and I am particularly concerned with the provision of employment, as well as with getting into the export market, and providing the components for the houses which are so urgently needed. I know that many hundreds of people have been liberated from some of the munition factories, and that manufacturers, as soon as they have a reasonable chance of getting hold of their premises and putting their house in order, will do so and provide work for their people I believe that the Government are fully aware of the urgency of this matter, and I am hopeful that some good news will be forthcoming in the reply.

5.4 p.m.

Captain Prescott: I rise to support the arguments so well put forward by my hon. Friends. I am delighted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade is now with us; he is very welcome


in the House, as indeed he was in Darwen, where he helped to increase my majority by many thousands. Perhaps he will forgive me if I repeat one or two figures given by my hon. Friend, because however full the note that was taken for him, I think those figures should be repeated. I, and I think many hon. Members in all quarters of this House, feel grave concern about the large amount of industrial floor space held for Government purposes. As has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Shephard) the Board of Trade is both the requisitioning, the derequisitioning authority, and it is, therefore, to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade that we address ourselves tonight.
As a result of Questions put by my hon. Friends on this side of the House, it was elicited that during the period of the war, some 150,000,000 square feet were under requisition. I understand that in September last the figure was 138,000,000. Therefore, only a comparatively small area has been derequisitioned, and tonight we ask the President of the Board of Trade for an assurance that this matter is being dealt with as expeditiously as possible. In view of the fact that the Board of Trade very largely acts as the agent for other Government Departments, I put to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the possibility that the demands of other Government Departments are excessively estimated. If he and his Department would look more closely into this matter it might be possible to release more speedily a considerable area which is still under requisition.
It must, I think, be obvious to the House that however speedily we demobilise the Forces, however readily raw materials are made available, those two things by themselves will count for nothing in peacetime production, unless the industrial floor space has been made available to the various concerns who rightly claim it now. We urge that this is a matter of very great and grave importance. No political issue at all is involved, and this matter is raised in no political spirit, but merely to ventilate something which we feel should rightly be brought to the attention of the night hon. and learned Gentleman. However eager employers may be to provide employment for returning ex-Servicemen, one thing is

obvious, and that is that their premises, or an adequate part of them, must be returned in order that they may fulfil their obligations. Of course, it would have been stupid for us in this House in the last Parliament to have passed the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act, if its. effect was rendered nugatory because Government Departments unnecessarily and unwisely held on to industrial floor space which, in fact, they no longer needed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newark gave some figures which I think were very startling. He asserted—and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will contradict it if it isinaccurate—that a floor space of 138,000,000 square feet could provide employment for some 900,000. If that is a fact, then surely it is a matter which deserves the closest possible scrutiny. I would refer to one example which I think is relevant although it does not actually concern industrial premises. I own a small house. Half of that house has been requisitioned for a considerable time. I have no objection to that; it can remain under requisition as long as the Government Department requires it, but if it was derequisitioned now, I would make it available to some of the people who require housing accommodation. In point of fact, three-quarters of the requisitioned, area is never used. It stands empty, I cannot use it and I cannot allow other people who desire housing accommodation to use it. If the same attitude is adopted with regard to industrial floor space, it would seem possible that many hundreds of thousands of square feet are requisitioned at this present moment when they need not be.
I do not think I need weary the House by underlining any further the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark. He put three questions to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade; a note was taken of them by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, and I hope they will be answered. I would only add that in Darwen, with which the right hon. Gentleman and myself are both familiar, this is a pressing problem. If it be pressing in that town, it must be equally pressing in many other towns and we ask that the President of the Board of Trade, who acts very largely as an agent


in these matters, should not take the figures and demands of other Departments as they are presented to him, but should scrutinise them most carefully, and while retaining all floor space which is necessary in the national interest, ensure that as much as can be derequisitioned is derequisitioned at the earliest possible moment, because we believe it to be in the national interest that that course should be taken.

5.11 p.m.

Mr. Collins: As a manufacturer with a number of factories, I must support what has already been said about the extreme urgency of this matter of derequisitioning. I feel sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade will be able to give us an assurance on the first point raised by the hon. Member who opened this Debate, namely, that derequisitioning will be accelerated. What I feel is very important in addition, however, is that we should be given some knowledge of the concrete proposals and measures by which derequisitioning will be accelerated. I think we are entitled to know the methods which it is intended to pursue. With regard to the third point mentioned, I do not see how it is possible for anyone, at this time, to state with any degree of accuracy even the approximate date by which derequisitioning will be complete. I am sure that all hon. Members could quote many instances all over the country of premises, many of them empty, which are not being put to any visible use, but which the manufacturers who require them very badly cannot obtain for the re-employment of men already demobilised or about to be demobilised. It is urgently necessary to speed up this matter so that manufacturers submitting their applications, particularly in respect of premises which are empty, may have an early answer.
Only today I have submitted to my right hon. and learned Friend a case in my own Division of manufacturers who are engaged on very urgent and important work and who, for the last three years, have been sharing premises with other manufacturers under a tenancy agreement. They now have to find other premises; they exercised a good deal of forethought, and for 12 months have been looking round for suitable premises. They

have actually found empty premises and have been in negotiation with the Regional officer of the Board of Trade, who has been most helpful. But here they come up against a point that was mentioned before, namely the difficulty of inducing the other Department concerned to come to a definite decision, when there is no visible or even invisible reason why a definite decision should not be arrived at. I know another case which affected myself. We wanted another factory, and as it was for the production of furniture it is urgently needed now. We saw a factory which, at that time, was filled with coffins for the American Army. Very fortunately, the purpose for which those coffins were made will not arise. Eventually, to our surprise, when the coffins were taken away, the British Army took over the factory, and although we cannot find out for what purpose they are using it, we are not allowed to have it.
In many parts of the country, and particularly in my Division, there is a number of camps, many of which would be eminently suitable for turning into trading estates and factory colonies. On Saturday last I was discussing the matter with the secretary of the development association in Taunton, and he gave me a list of seven different firms which were awaiting factory space. In the South-West we badly need auxiliary industries in order to maintain employment; yet firms are not given any idea as to when these buildings may be available. This matter affects agriculture as well. In a very exposed part of Exmoor, where there is a really urgent need for farm buildings, there are disused buildings which have been empty for a long time, but here again, although the farmers would be very willing to take over those buildings for a variety of very useful purposes, no information can be obtained as to when they are likely to be released. I know of another instance where for several years a fairly large building has been used for the storage of furniture which might have been required for evacuees; that furniture is still in the building, although no doubt there would be a very good market for it, and it is urgently needed elsewhere. I have no doubt that these points are receiving urgent attention and I can understand that they take time for adjustment, but is is now time for the most urgent representations to be made


to the Departments concerned, which ought to show a real reason why the premises cannot be released.
Reference has been made to the possibility that some of the buildings are still being used for storage, and it has been said that it is impossible to find other suitable accommodation to enable the buildings to be released for manufacturing purposes. There is one matter which I think ought to be taken up. There are many airfields, having good hard roadways, which are not being used. Those hard roadways would make good standing grounds for a large variety of materials which would not deteriorate to any extent if they were so placed. I suggest that any such materials which are now in buildings suitable for manufacturing and trading purposes should be moved out and put on to standing grounds of this sort. I urge that this matter be given the most urgent consideration and that, wherever possible, the buildings be emptied and their contents transferred, so that the buildings may be derequisitioned. This should be done at once so that industry may be given the opportunity of acquiring and using the buildings.

5.19 p.m.

Mr. Attewell: I wish to refer to derequisitioning of buildings relative to the boot and shoe industry. I have sat on many committees within the industry throughout the period of concentration and I have knowledge of the difficulties as a result of interviews with Government Departments. I appreciate fully the difficult situation which now confronts the Government, but I want to appeal to Government Departments to press forward with all speed in the derequisitioning of factories in order that there may be de-concentration of the firms. Many of the firms with which I am connected as a trade union official were concentrated in one of two ways; either they were concentrated within themselves, giving up floor space or they were concentrated with other firms and vacated the whole of their premises. I know the difficulties which face the Government in this respect. Where whole factories were vacated, the factories were in many cases taken over by recently created firms, and a great deal of money was spent in placing those firms in a position in which they could carry on their new wartime activities. One can understand that there is a certain

amount of reluctance in handing back the factories until the job for which they were taken over is completed.
Nevertheless, in the boot and shoe industry, we feel that we must look ahead to the coming months when our people will be returning from the Services. It will be impossible to employ these returning Service men and women unless we are able to obtain the maximum space. In the boot and shoe industry each individual man or woman operative has a different job, one following upon the other, and consequently a great deal of floor space is called for. It is true that an increase in floor space would not lead to an immediate increase in output. I could not honestly say at this moment that if there were deconcentration the boot and shoe industry would give a greater output. We could not do so, because we are conditioned by the materials available. But we are looking to the months immediately ahead, and we ask that the pledge that was given to our manufacturers should be honoured. There has been some doubt expressed. Some of the firms who are in the factories that were vacated, feeling that they have Government backing, seem to be bold in retaining the factories until they have themselves looked around to find floor space for themselves. I do not think there is any truth in those doubts. I think the Government will honour the pledge that was given to our manufacturers, who were among the first to concentrate and who have, I believe, given less trouble to the Government than many other trades have done.
But the main point is this. In this process of concentration, in which the operatives of two firms were placed in one factory, the operatives have had to work under conditions that have been far from beneficial to their health. Many of the factories in which they are working at the present time are lacking in many of the essentials which the Factory Acts state should obtain. In the course of my trade union activities, I have seen the factory inspector and we have had to agree that in the circumstances of war we could not expect the Factory Acts to be fully carried out. Nevertheless, these men and women should not be expected to work under such conditions a moment longer than is necessary. There is, then, the question of travel. London is a unit, but it is a pretty large unit when it is a question of people coming from South


London to work in North London. Often the operatives find that when their firm has been concentrated and they have to go to the factory of another firm, it involves a long daily journey, and with the approach of the winter this will cause a terrific strain upon their health. I ask the Government to do everything they can to release these factories, and to give us an opportunity to increase our production so that we may be able to supply foot wear not only to the men and women of this country but to the world.

5.26 p.m.

Mr. Deer: I crave the indulgence of the House on rising to make my maiden speech. My reason for intervening in this Debate is that I have had some experience while acting as a representative on one of the regional boards dealing with this matter. I reinforce the appeals that have been made to the President of the Board of Trade to give more power to the regional boards in dealing with this matter of derequisitioning. Personally, I have no complaints whatever regarding the recent regional changes and developments in the Board of Trade machinery. Considerable advances have been made since the regional machinery was improved and perfected by the Board of Trade.
I want to urge the President of the Board of Trade to have the courage to take risks in releasing factories. It is true that there may be some articles, either wholly manufactured or partly manufactured, that might deteriorate if they were placed in the open, but I suggest it would be sound economy to take that risk. The time that is being wasted in dealing with these stores represents a greater loss to the country than any loss that would be caused by deterioration of the stores. In the North Midland region there was a large firm which had come from Coventry into Nottinghamshire. This firm ceased production over 12 months ago, but so far as I know, the factory has not yet been cleared. At one period a staff of 400 people was dealing with the distribution of the remaining goods, which had to be allocated, valued and got rid of. I suggest that if it had been possible to clear that particular factory both of manufactured products and partly manufactured products, whatever might have been lost as a result of the stored articles

going into the open or elsewhere would have been more than balanced by the saving of 400 people's time in stock-taking in a factory that had been shut down. That is the sort of thing we want to avoid.
I do not think that all the blame rests with Government Departments. Obviously, when a factory is requisitioned, various structural and other alterations take place and these have to be dealt with and settled when the particular firm who have gone in have to come out and the factory is restored to its normal purpose. I am told that there are endless financial wrangles over the value of the alterations to property during the wartime period. That ought to be short circuited. I think it would be possible for some particular deciding figure to be given by the Board of Trade and the factory to be cleared, and if the figure was not satisfactory they could settle by arbitration afterwards what the financial obligation should be. To keep a factory idle because they cannot agree on the price of a wall that has been put up in order to divide the factory is foolish when we are dealing with the problem of returning quickly to postwar production.
My final word is that with the reconstruction of the Regional Boards, and with the additional industrialists, other than engineers, who are now advising the Board of Trade, there ought to be the machinery and the advice to help the President of the Board of Trade to accelerate the change over from wartime to peacetime production. I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to use that machinery to the fullest extent in order to hasten the day when we shall get back from wartime to peacetime production.

5.32 p.m.

Colonel Oliver Stanley: My first and very pleasant duty is to congratulate the two hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches—the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Attewell) and the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Deer). Both of them have shown in their speeches three qualities which always make a success of any speech in this House: the first is brevity, the second is keeping to the point and the third is a real practical knowledge of their subject. I am sure that the whole House enjoyed their contributions very much, and we hope to hear them again on these subjects on which they are obviously so well


informed. I think all of us must be grateful to my hon. Friend for having given the opportunity for a short discussion on this extremely important matter. Probably no one is more grateful than the right hon. and learned Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, because in this case I am sure the arguments that have been put to him are arguments with which he agrees, and his interest is the same as the interest of all of us in the House, and that is, to get the de-requisitioning done as quickly as possible in order to restart trade.
I am not going again over points so well put by hon. Members. There is only one point to which I want to refer. In this matter the right hon. and learned Gentleman is the defender of trade interests against the defenders of the Service interests, and I hope this Debate will have the effect of giving him self-confidence if he feels at all shy in the presence of his Service colleagues. I remember sitting, not so very long ago, on a Committee with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and I know that when it comes to matters of this kind the Service Departments are really like limpets. They stick to factory space and storage capacity to the death, and they can only be prised off it by the use of very considerable force. For any particular case by itself they can nearly always put up a good defence. I am talking particularly about the release of space now used for storage. They could not put as good a case no was in the summer, because then they could refer to materials which might be wanted for the Japanese war which, if they were stored under less favourable conditions, might deteriorate, with ill effects from the military point of view. But they can nearly always plead that, if they were to be made to vacate some certain storage which actually meets their requirements and keep the things either in the open or under less favourable conditions, it would lead to some deterioration, and when it came to a question of disposal that would mean some loss in value and therefore of money for the Treasury.
All of us in this House are prepared for this. It is a question of the balance of advantage. It may well be worth facing some monetary loss to the Treasury owing to deterioration of certain stores which have been disposed of when you put that

against the greater loss to the nation by depriving trade, particularly export trade, of the use of floor space. I am sure that all my hon. Friends on this side of the House will realise that argument perfectly and that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman at some future date says, "I am bound to admit that the Treasury, by disposal, has suffered some loss because these goods were turned out in the open air," we shall all say that the right decision was taken and we shall all be prepared to back it. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will hold his end up against his Service colleagues and put this matter through as soon as he can.

5.37 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Stafford Cripps): I should like to join with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite in his congratulations to the two hon. Members who made their maiden speeches this afternoon, and to say that I shall always be delighted to hear contributions from either side of the House, maiden speeches or otherwise, which are as constructive as the suggestions which they have put forward this afternoon. Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I were, first, to state the facts up to the most recent date for which we have them, and then answer the questions as regards how we are dealing with this matter and what we hope to be able to do. As the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Shephard) remarked in his opening speech, we have reduced the 150,000,000 square feet, which was the original figure which had been requisitioned for storage purposes, to 138,000,000 square feet by the end of September, and since then it has been reduced by rather more than 2,000,000 square feet further; but that is not quite the full measure of what has been done. As hon. Members will appreciate, it takes a little time to clear and to get the various final arrangements completed when premises are derequisitioned. We have a method by which requests to vacate are issued immediately the occupying Departments undertake to ask to derequisition the premises. Thereafter it may take a month or so, or even longer in some cases, to get the premises emptied, but the Departments who are in occupation have determined to finish their occupation, and that means to say that inter-Departmentally we have solved the problem. Then it becomes merely a physical


problem of doing what is necessary in order to clear the premises.
At the end of September requests to vacate had been given for rather over 25,000,000 square feet, and by the end of October, 32,000,000 square feet. It is hoped, therefore, that, as a target, by the end of this year 35,000,000 square feet will actually have been vacated, and it is hoped that the whole of the rest of the premises, with possible small exceptions, will be vacated by the end of 1946. That is the target at which we are presently aiming. This is not a matter which one can carry through haphazard, because it is no good vacating premises where there is no labour or raw material ready in order that those premises may be utilised. One wants to maintain storage in premises as long as they cannot be used effectively for anything else, so that one can vacate premises which can at once be used for something else.
We have drawn up a list of three priorities: the first are to be vacated by the end of the year, the second by the middle of next year, and the third in the last half of next year. In determining those priorities we have taken into consideration these matters. First we have regard to the need of the Development Areas, because that is where we anticipate the greatest difficulty will arise in keeping the people employed and giving employment to those who return after demobilisation. Secondly, we concentrate on those industries which can best contribute to the restoration of our export trade, because that is, from the production point of view, the most vital matter that we have to face. Thirdly, we take into consideration meeting the general needs of the public for consumer goods, which are at present in short supply. Over and above those three particular matters we naturally have regard, in association with the Ministry of Labour, to the figures of unemployment, or of the potential unemployment which seems likely to arise in any particular area, and having regard to this, we allocate the priorities under which various premises are to be vacated.
We have not, fortunately, met with any great opposition from the Service Ministers. In some cases they are in very real difficulties. It will be appreciated by the House that the Admiralty, in particular,

has lost a very large part of its prewar storage premises. After the bombing of the ports a very great volume of Admiralty storage was found outside, and even though the war is not still on, it is necessary, in order to maintain the Navy, the Army and the Air Force, to have a volume of stores behind the various Services in this country, and some accommodation must be found for these stores. Those stores which are not surplus but which are required for the Services for the next year or so. Therefore, owing to the destruction of the normal storage facilities, it is necessary to maintain for a period longer some alternative premises in which those valuable stores can be placed. That deals with what is still required for the Services.
There is, of course, a vast quantity of surplus goods that are no longer required for the Services. Each week now more and more goods are being declared surplus by the various Services. We have already taken the step of instructing those who are responsible for clearing these premises that they are not to pay undue attention to the preservation of the value of these stores. We have told them that it is more important from the national point of view to clear the premises than to preserve the stores. When I get "called over the coals," as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests that I may do at some subsequent stage, I shall call in aid what he has said tonight. Clearly the most urgent matter today is to get the capacity that is required to re-employ our people when they are demobilised or when they come out of the munition industries. 
We propose, therefore, to take the most drastic measures, and we have already done what one, hon. Member suggested we might do; that is to say, we are using airfields for storing surplus goods, out of doors if necessary, and taking the risk of their deterioration. There is one difficulty about storage on airfields, which is that generally they are remote, and often very remote, from industrial districts, and the transport problem which arises is very serious indeed. At the present time, with the need for moving coal, food and all other necessary materials in the country, it is very difficult to find a sufficient volume of transport to move all the goods that need to be moved, or, indeed, to find a sufficient volume of labour to move them, the labour being, as a rule, of a type which is very competitive with the


need for building labour. However, we are, I hope, organising it to the best of our ability, and, at the present moment, I do not think we are holding anything up.
Regarding the question of what organisation we are adopting to do this, under the Board of Trade, this is dealt with by one or two Departments, and we have asked General Lindsell, who is probably well known to hon. Members of the House as an efficient administrator with great experience of the movement of goods during the war, to take charge of this job, and he has consented. It is, perhaps, an advantage to have a military man when dealing with military people in regard to the clearing of storage space, and there is no doubt at all that, as soon as he took hold of this job, he organised it in such a way as will very much expedite the procedure of de-requisitioning.

Mr. E. P. Smith: Is it not possible to sell some of these stores instead of re-dispersing them?

Sir S. Cripps: I am coming to that in a moment. I am dealing, at the moment, with surplus stores which are unsaleable, or very largely so. The demand for second-hand tanks, for instance, is very small. As regards the method of organisation, we have, in addition, set up a network of regional controllers in order to decentralise this work as far as possible, because I think it is obvious, as the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Deer) suggested, that things can often be dealt with more rapidly in the Regions than by coming to Headquarters. We hope, in that matter, to have the assistance of the Regional Boards, who are, I think, fully acquainted with our regional organisation, and of the National Advisory Committee on production, who have had the whole matter explained to them. With that new machinery, which has only been functioning for a few weeks, we hope that we shall get a very considerable acceleration of the process.
As regards the class of goods to which the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. E. P. Smith) referred a moment ago, goods which might be sold to the public quickly, we are taking every step to see that they are put on the market as soon as possible, but the hon. Member will bear in mind that a White Paper was issued by

the last Government, or the last Government but one, which laid down the method by which these disposals should take place. Broadly speaking, it laid down that, where possible, the disposal should take place through the normal channels of trade, in order that there should be a reasonable dispersal throughout the country, and that one particular district would not get an advantage over another. That method is being carried out. We are not going to stick too rigidly to it, and, if we find, in any particular case, that it interferes with quick clearance of goods, we shall adopt other methods, but, broadly speaking, we shall stick to that at least as long as it seems to be working satisfactorily. The actual volume of goods which can be quickly disposed of to the civilian population is very small—furniture, cups and saucers, pots and pans, some clothing and materials of that kind—but the bulkiest goods are things like propellers for aeroplanes, which do not have a ready sale at the present time. They are an expense to break down, and there is no profit in them at all. If paid, someone might take them away. There is a large volume of goods which have no value at all beyond the value of the scrap which can be got from them and they are the bulkiest to handle. Ammunition, too, has to be broken down before it can be safe for any use at all. But we have all these matters fully in mind.
I hope that, by continuing along these lines, we shall be able to show, by the end of the year a very substantial measure of de-requisitioning, and be able to clear out, to all intents and purposes, by the end of next year. We feel that, if we can do that, we shall, if we are fairly accurate in our priorities, keep pace with the demands for capacity arising from a freer flow of raw materials and from demobilised and other labour which is coming along. One hon. Member mentioned boots and shoes and said, very justly, that, if we did derequisition footwear premises at this moment we would not get any more footwear, because there is no material or labour, as is the case in many other trades. We have these matters well in view, and if any hon. Member, at any time, will draw my attention to any particular case in which he feels that the reinstitution of normal trade is being held up, I shall be only too


glad to have it inquired into at once, because, although we try to do our best, it is quite obvious that, with such a large and widely spread area, it is quite impossible to certify that we do not overlook some case which may be quite important. I would, therefore, very much welcome the assistance of hon. Members in trying to do what I am sure we all want to do, that is, get these premises back again to their normal manufacture as rapidly as we possibly can.

Mr. Shephard: Would the Minister tell the House whether he intends to make use of any of these redundant Royal Ordnance Factories, some of which are now on a care-and-maintenance basis? With regard to airfields and hangars released by the Air Ministry, are they restricted to use by the Air Ministry or made available to other Ministries?

Sir S. Cripps: We are definitely taking over a number of suitable airfields for this purpose. Under an arrangement with the Air Ministry, we have got a certain number of airfields, conveniently located, and we are using them for this purpose. In regard to the Ordnance Factories, in nearly every case these have either been allotted to industrialists for manufacturing or are continuing to manufacture such things as housing fitments and so on for the Ministry of Supply. There are one or two special cases, such as underground factories, which are now being used for storage purposes for machine tools and things of that kind. We are anxious, where there are quite new factory buildings, not to use them for storage; we would rather use some old buildings for storage and make available the new factories for productive enterprise.

Orders of the Day — YUGOSLAVIA (MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT, VISIT)

5.55 p.m.

Flight-Lieutenant Teeling: I would like to thank the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for coming to the House at very short notice to make a little clearer, I hope, the position with regard to the visit now taking place of a number of Members of Parliament to Yugoslavia. If I sound a little vague in raising this matter, it is because, quite frankly, to me the whole situation seems

to be vague and I cannot understand it. I hope the Under-Secretary will be able to clear it up. I look at the present position of Yugoslavia. The House should remember that there will take place next Sunday elections of vital importance, we understand, not only to Yugoslavia but to the Balkans as a whole. For a long time in the last Parliament, we heard quite definite statements that it would be the intention and hope of His Majesty's Government that there should be democratic elections in Yugoslavia, and that it would then be finally decided what was to be the form of Government of that country. Therefore, next Sunday's elections must be of tremendous importance, and I do not think it would be exaggerating to say that a large proportion of the popularity or power of Marshal Tito's present hold on Yugoslavia is due to the fact that he received, during the last Parliament and while he was still fighting, very strong and public support from the then Prime Minister and the Government of this country. When the famous Tito-Subasich Agreement was made, it was on that basis that we recognised his régime.
The other day I asked the Foreign Secretary what was the position in regard to the Tito-Subasich Agreement, in view of the fact that Dr. Subasich had resigned and another member of the Government, M. Grol, a Regent, had also gone and that there seemed great uncertainty. The Foreign Secretary informed me that the Soviet Government, the British Government and the United States Government were at the present moment looking into these questions, and this was not really the moment for defining the position or making a statement. In other words, the case was, so to speak, sub judice. If that is so, is it the time for 11 Members of Parliament to go out from this country to take, seemingly, a fairly active part in the coming elections and to be there to see what is going on? I ask hon. Members, in all fairness, when they think of the present position of the Balkans and of the people who have lived under dictatorial governments, not only under the Germans but, in the old days, under their own Governments, to reflect whether, when 11 Members of this Chamber can leave their own country to attend this election, it will not certainly mean to the majority of Serbians, Croats and Slovenes that we are behind


it all and that we approve of what is going on?
Therefore, it seems to me to be a matter of the greatest importance that, if a thing like this is going to happen, at least people of considerable experience of this House should be sent out and should be representative of all three parties. I regret that I am not in a position to know very much about who is going. I can only refer to a picture which appeared in the "Daily Herald" today. In this particular list there is one hon. Member who was in the last Parliament and was elected three years ago, and all the other 10 have been in this House for just over three months.
Therefore I ask, In what capacity are they going? Are they going there as experienced Parliamentarians to see how a parliament is carried on abroad? Are they going out as experienced Members of Parliament from this country to watch the elections or are they going out on a bean feast, or what are they doing? There are many people in this country at the moment who find it extremely hard to go out to do their legitimate business, which they think will be of great use to this country, and other people think so as well. I am myself, fighting at the moment to get some people out to South America to do some trade there, but today we find ourselves in the position that 11 Members of Parliament are able to go out at the shortest of notice, as far as I can see, to this Balkan country. How are they able to do it? They must have had exit permits, so presumably the Home Secretary approved of all this. Yet he does not always approve so easily or so quickly.
I can only tell the House what I know of the situation. What I understand happened was, that the hon. Member for Fins bury (Mr. Platts-Mills) read his newspaper one Sunday—I believe it was "Reynolds' News"—and saw in it that Marshal Tito had told somebody on the paper, that he would like someone to go out from this country. The hon. Gentleman therefore got into touch with the Yugoslavs who said, "Yes, we would love you to come." He then went round this House and collected the names of 21 people—now boiled down to 11—and they were told that they would go in a Yugoslav aircraft but, if that were not available, probably through the Foreign Office

it would be possible for an aircraft or some means of transport to be provided from this country.
I would like the Under-Secretary to tell us how far they have been assisted to go, and who is paying their expenses. Is this trip being paid for in any way from Government funds, or is it being assisted in any way from them? I understand from the answer given me today that they have gone at the invitation of the Yugoslav Government. I hope, therefore, that the Under-Secretary will make it quite clear that they have not gone out under any organised, conducted arrangements, made by the British Government or the United States Government, and therefore in going round the country, they will be entirely the guests of Marshall Tito and the Yugoslav Government. Presumably, therefore, they will see exactly what he wants them to see—they may be able to see more. I do not know how many of them speak Serbian, or German, or any of the languages of the country—but they are definitely and officially, as far as one can see, the guests of the Yugoslav Government. Therefore, when they come back, I hope they will keep to the tradition of politeness of this country and say that their hosts have treated them well and nicely and say everything nice about them. If they do not, it will indeed be embarrassing for them. If anybody says they are saying things in favour of the present regime, because they are broad-minded people, I would be inclined to reply that they were saying such things because they had only seen the side which Marshal Tito wanted them to see.
If hon. Members look at the list of those who have gone they will see that there is not one hon. Member from this side of the House. There is, I believe, one Liberal; all the rest are Members of the Socialist Party who, with one exception, were elected during this Parliament. In the last Parliament there was considerable discussion on the question of Members of Parliament going abroad at all. I am firmly convinced that as many Members of Parliament as possible should be allowed to go abroad on their own, but when they start going in groups of 11, 12, 15 and 21, they really form themselves into some kind of Parliamentary delegation, especially when they go to areas from which no Parlia-


mentarian—if they had a Parliament—would be allowed to go out without permission of the Government. When they have exit permits from this country, it means that they are approved by the Government. Now I think the time has come to have proper Parliamentary delegations to go and see these things, and not just haphazard organisations of any Members of Parliament who have read their Sunday papers and got into touch with a foreign Government. Why not be in a position to send out our people, as they used to be sent, with proper representation of all parties of this House? That is what I am asking, and what I hope to hear from the Under-Secretary will at least soon be done. If that is done, there will be no reason to fear groups of Members of Parliament going out entirely "on their own" and giving a wrong impression to foreign Governments and to foreign electors that, because they are there, our Parliament has approved of their elections. I wonder if the Under-Secretary has any indication of where the tour will end and how long it will go on? Are they going to Austria? Would he give us some idea as to how far the Foreign Office approve of tours such as this, and would he also tell us a little about what the Department intend to do to see that Parliamentary delegations go occasionally from this country with a proper representation of all Parties so that, when they come back, they can give at least a constructive and broadminded report.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. Driberg: When my hon. Friend comes to reply he will no doubt deal with the specific questions which the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton (Flight-lieutenant Teeling) has put to him, and will assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that this particular mission—if one can call it that—is completely unofficial, independent and informal. However, there are just one or two points in what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said which I think need rebutting at once as vigorously as possible from the back benches. I really think he is making an altogether quite unnecessary fuss about this matter. Moreover, he has his facts more or less completely mixed up as to how the whole thing started. It did not start with some hon. Member seeing something in a Sunday newspaper; it started

with a broadcast by the Yugoslav Government. That Government broadcast an invitation in the hope that it would be accepted, and that Members of Parliament and Congressmen from America, of all Parties, might go to Yugoslavia and see how the elections were conducted, and that they were conducted fairly. There was no response to that invitation, and therefore the Yugoslav authorities got into touch with one hon. Member of this House—the hon. Member for Gate shead (Mr. Zilliacus)—whom they happened to know of because he has long been a specialist in foreign affairs and was for many years associated with the League of Nations.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: May I ask, purely for the information of the House, what was the nature of the broadcast? Was the broadcast in English to this country? If so, did the B.B.C. relay it, or how could the broadcast be heard?

Mr. Driberg: I do not know exactly the answer to that question. I can find out and let the hon. Gentleman know later. At any rate this broadcast was put out to the world, presumably on a wavelength on which it would be possible to hear it in this country and for it to be reported in this country. The Yugoslav Government got into touch with the hon. Member for Gateshead, who, in a perfectly informal way, invited Members of all Parties to allow him—and the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Platts-Mills) helped him to organise it—to put their names on the list. I happen to be one of those who was approached, but I found it impossible to accept because, quite frankly, I was too busy to get away; but, if my work had permitted me to get away, I should have gone with pleasure and without any hesitation at all.
After all, the hon. and gallant Member's criticisms of this informal delegation would apply in precisely the same way to a formal official delegation of all Parties or of one Party. I do not suppose there are too many hon. Members who know the languages spoken in Yugoslavia, on whatever side of the House they may sit, and I do not suppose that an official delegation would have had any less official attention from the Yugoslav Government than an unofficial delegation will have. Obviously, exactly the same criticisms apply, and if the hon. and gallant Mem-


ber for Brighton suggests that because these 11 Members are most of them new Members of this House, and that they are therefore quite incompetent to observeor to report to this House on what they have seen and heard in some foreign country, I think he is, by implication, criticising the electorate for what they did last July.
Any suggestion that the Government should restrain Members of Parliament from going wherever they want to go overseas, to any country in the world, should be resisted very strongly. In the last Parliament, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman will remember, violent protests were made because the then Government put some obstacles in the way of two hon. Members of the Conservative Party who wanted to go to Paris. That was very properly raised at Adjournment time here, and there were protests from all parts of the House. I think there should be the greatest possible freedom of movement about the world for all hon. Members who wish to go anywhere, to study any particular problems on the spot. I am sure that the visit to Yugoslavia of this unofficial delegation will be of benefit, not only to the electorate of Yugoslavia, but also—which is of more immediate domestic importance to ourselves—of benefit to this House, because they will be able to come back and give us a first-hand account, when a suitable opportunity arises in Debate, and an honest account—given by men who are, after all, not complete ignoramuses politically, not complete fools. I do not see that that can possibly do any harm, and it may be of considerable value to hon. Members in assisting them to make up their minds on the situation in Yugoslavia.
My last point is a small one, and, to be perfectly frank, I am not quite sure of my facts about this. However, I am almost certain that the hon. Member for Gateshead invited several Members of the party to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman belongs to become Members of the delegation, including the hon. and gallant Member for Lancaster (Brigadier Maclean). I understand that the hon. and gallant Member for Lancaster found it impossible to go, but, so far as I know, there was no party bias in the forming of the delegation at all.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: I know there is no intention on the part of

anybody on this side of the House of impugning the sincerity and good faith of the hon. Members who compose this party. Nor indeed, are we anything but most anxious that Members of Parliament should have the fullest possible opportunity to travel abroad. However, I think the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) must admit that this is a particular and peculiar case, and that the state of affairs in Yugoslavia is, to say the least of it, ticklish. I think the three great principles that should govern the sending of Members of Parliament to countries abroad have not been observed. First of all it is an actual fact that the delegation consists of Members of one party only. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, there is one Liberal".] Well one Liberal—it is not a representative party, and impartiality and the representative nature of the party are of vital importance. [An Hon. Member: "Whose fault is that?"] If they are inexperienced Members, it is not their fault; it may be the fault of the more experienced Members for not going, but it certainly adds to the danger of the situation.
As far as the publicity is concerned, I do not think it matters how the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Zilliacus) got his invitation, whether listening in to the Yugoslav broadcast in front of his fire in the evening, or in any other way. That does not matter. But the fact is that there is a feeling that it has been rather a hole and corner business. Then there is the principle of common sense and discretion. I am anxious that the Government should give an explanation of how it came about that they allowed this situation to arise, that they allowed an unofficial group of Members to go out to that particular country at a particularly difficult moment in its history in such a way that it is bound to give the impression that they had the prestige of this House and the Government behind them. I am trying to be as impartial as I can, but why was this delegation asked out there by Marshal Tito? If he wanted impartial observers from this country to observe the elections, to give a fair verdict, and to certify that they were above board, was not his right method of approach to His Majesty's Government? Further, what use will be made of this delegation? Marshal Tito is no doubt expecting that they will come back here and say that they saw a perfectly free election. But


it does not want much knowledge of the Balkans to know that such delegations are subjected to careful chaperonage. No doubt the delegation will be taken to some model polling station where two or three people will be labelled "A," "B" and "C," and they will see that these people fairly and freely cast their votes for the the opposition—

Mr. Driberg: Would the hon. Gentleman deal with my argument on that point, that if they had been an official delegation they would equally have been subjected to chaperonage?

Mr. Nicholson: I think they would. That is why I think that to send out a delegation of Members of Parliament is a most dangerous thing in present-day conditions.

Mr. Sydney Sillverman: Do we understand from the hon. Member that an unofficial delegation is of no use because it would be chaperoned and deceived, and that an official delegation would be no use for the same reason, so that nobody we ever sent to Yugoslavia would come back with a report which the hon. Member would believe?

Mr. Nicholson: That is a fair question, and I say that in the case of a Balkan country, it would be entirely valueless to send out a delegation to certify that the elections are "O.K.," unless that delegation had the full authority of His Majesty's Government—

Mr. Silverman: What difference does that make?

Mr. Nicholson: —and diplomatic authority to go where they liked, to see whom they liked, and to investigate what they liked. I think we are embarking upon most dangerous waters if it is to be the procedure of various Governments on the Continent—it does not matter what their political complexion—when conducting elections, for them to ask that those elections should be vouched for by delegations under their chaperonage from its country. I am not speaking from a party point of view. I am considering the dignity of Membership of this House. It is most dangerous if it is made to appear, or if it may be made to appear, that Members of Parliament have been "nobbled" by foreign governments to

vouch for the authenticity of their elections. I do not blame the hon. Members who went—innocent gentlemen—but I do blame His Majesty's Government for allowing such an undignified state of affairs to arise. I think the matter calls for a frank and serious explanation, and I hope the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will give it.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. Lipson: The hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. G. Nicholson) said with regard to this deputation that it would create a wrong impression that it would be regarded as an official delegation of this House whereas, in fact, it was unofficial. I think that if" this Debate serves no other purpose it will do something to remove that wrong impression. The delegation we are discussing is unofficial. I want strongly to support the plea made by the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg), that there should be no attempt on the part of His Majesty's Government to interfere with the right of a Member of Parliament to go wherever he thinks he ought to go to make himself efficient in the performance of his Parliamentary duties.

Mr. Baxter: While most hon. Members will agree with the hon. Gentleman's last sentence, is he so innocent that he seriously suggests that the Tito controlled Press will carry the news that British Members of Parliament in Yugoslavia are not to be considered official, that their view is not official? Does the hon. Gentleman ask us to believe that?

Mr. Lipson: This delegation has not gone out to inform the Yugoslav people whether their elections are being properly conducted or not. They probably know that without the necessity for any delegation. Members of the delegation are to bring back news of what they saw. It is true that I may be more' innocent than the hon. Member, but I differ from him also in this respect: I am not prepared to believe the worst of any Government, nor am I prepared to believe that Members of this House can so easily be led up the garden path by chaperons in Yugoslavia, as has been assumed. Just as it would be wrong for His Majesty's Government to restrict the rights of Members of Parliament to go where they wished, it is not within the province of other Members to tell their colleagues in this


House whether they should go anywhere, or not. It is for Members themselves to decide that. As I understand the position, the request for a delegation came from the Yugoslav Government. Nobody would suggest that that Government should be told by the British Government that they should not ask for a delegation from this House. Members have blamed His Majesty's Government for having provided certain facilities for the delegation—

Mr. E. P. Smith: But is it a delegation?

Mr. Lipson: It is described as an unofficial delegation.

Mr. Baxter: Surely it would have been an act of courtesy and ordinary procedure for the Yugoslav Government, or dictatorship—or whatever it is called—if it wished to invite a delegation representative of Members of this House, to communicate directly with His Majesty's Government instead of broadcasting the invitation, as they did?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The hon. Member is making a speech, not asking a question.

Mr. Lipson: I am concerned with what the Yugoslav Government did, and not with what they ought to have done. As the hon. Member has raised the question of courtesy, I should have thought that in the interests of good international relations, when a foreign Government broadcast a request that Members of this House should go to their country and see what is taking place, it was only an act of courtesy that the British Government should provide reasonable facilities to enable Members to accept the invitation. Complaints have usually been levelled by some Members about the Yugoslav and other Governments in the Balkans that they do not allow a sufficient number of people from outside into their territories, that we do not know enough about what is going on. Here was an opportunity to remedy that. Members of this delegation will come back and tell us what they saw. We are told that they are all members of one party with one exception, a Liberal. I think it has been made clear that the invitation was extended also to members of the Conservative party. The fact that the delegation is composed of Members from one party, with one excep-

tion, is only one more example perhaps of "birds of a feather flocking together." The hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) will have an opportunity, when Members of the delegation come back and speak in Debate and say what they have seen, to cross-examine them and assess their evidence at its proper value. I do not see that any blame can possibly attach to His Majesty's Government for providing reasonable facilities for the delegation, and I hope that neither on this occasion nor on any other will they do anything to interfere with the rights of Members of Parliament to go where they please in pursuance of their Parliamentary duties.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I wish to express my astonishment at the position into which Members of the Conservative Party, now in Opposition, are trying to lead us. Anyone would suppose that this was the first occasion in Parliamentary history on which an unofficial group of Members had gone, by themselves, without any official sponsoring from His Majesty's Government, to visit a country where events were taking place which aroused some kind of dispute. I remember an unofficial group of Labour M.P.s who went to Spain during the Civil War. I did not hear any Member of the House say that I, as one of that party, ought not to have gone, or that it would have been better if I had gone with the official sanction of the Government of the day. Members of the Conservative party also went to Spain, in an unofficial party, during those troubles. It is true that we were more interested in the legitimate Government in that Civil War, and that they were more interested in the rebels but—

Mr. Lipson: Some of them also went to Nuremberg.

Mr. Silverman: My hon. Friend will appreciate that I cannot make all my points at once. On that occasion I no more thought of objecting to Conservative Members looking at Franco, than they thought of objecting to my going to look at the Liberal Government of Spain, which was overthrown by the rebel generals and the Nazis of the day. There were other Members who went to Italy during questionable periods. I remember the Leader of the Opposition went to Rome at a very critical period, where he


made a most mischievous speech which, I am sure, he will live to regret. But nobody ever said that he should not go. No one would have dreamt of saying that he should not go.

Mr. Nicholson: Is the hon. Member telling us that he does not see anything peculiar about the visit of a delegation that obviously will be expected to vouch for the authenticity of elections at a time when Government sanction is needed to leave this country? Before the war such sanction was not required.

Mr. Silverman: I am coming to that point in a moment. The delegation is no more going to Yugoslavia to vouch for the authenticity of the elections than it is to vouch for the unauthenticity of the elections. Members are going to see the elections. The hon. Gentleman may distrust those Members, he may doubt their good faith, but my hon. Friends and I do not share his distrust. I think they will come back with a perfectly fair and honest report. If they find that their opportunities for making a proper investigation are insufficient to enable them to report at all, they will say so. If they come back and say they found that the elections were improperly conducted, I shall be inclined to think that the elections were improperly conducted, and, on the other hand, if they say the elections were fairly conducted, I shall be inclined to believe that.
What do the hon. Gentlemen opposite want? Do they want to retain, without evidence either way, the right to say the elections are unfair? If not, why did they not go and see for themselves? The hon. Member wishes to say he was not asked, but it has become common ground during this Debate that anybody who wanted to go had the opportunity. Nobody would suggest for a moment that the unofficial delegation could consist of 640 Members of Parliament, but I should have thought that it could have been an all-party delegation. It is, in fact, a two-party delegation, and I do not think the Liberal Party will think they are unfairly represented by having one Member in a group of that size. Is there a Conservative Member, out of all those who have been complaining tonight of the one-sided nature of the party, who made an attempt to go himself?

Mr. Marlowe: The hon. Member keeps using the word "delegation." Would he agree that a delegation consists of persons delegated by somebody else, but that this party was not delegated by anyone?

Mr. Silverman: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for the correction, which I accept. Call it "party," "group," or any other word you like to think of. I fell into the use of the word "delegation" because it has been used so often tonight by hon. Members. I agree it is not a delegation at all, but a group of Private Members of Parliament who have gone out to see, and who will come back and report. The hon. Members opposite, who are complaining that the people concerned consist only of one or two parties, had the remedy in their own hands. If they did not want to go—and, in fact, did not go—and if they then complain of those who did go, I think one is entitled to draw the inference that the one thing they are afraid of in this matter is the truth. They want to keep this big stick, this attitude of suspicion, of saying that everything in that part of the world is all wrong, and to use it as a kind of argument to poison, still further, international relations.
I warn them they are treading a very dangerous path, and are trying to lead this House and the country along a very dangerous path. It is all very well to say that it is necessary to have sympathy and agreement with the Balkan States and Russia, and with other people, but those things do not grow out of formal treaties and official exchanges. If you are to have real peace and understanding, sympathy and comprehension must go with them. That does not mean that you are not to take account of disturbing factors, but it does mean that you are not to be too read to believe they are true, without inquiry. Before you venture to make a criticism which can do nothing but mischief in the world, take every opportunity there may be of finding out what is the position, of seeing both sides.
You cannot see both sides if you stop only on one side. I have been a Member of this House for ten years. I have had the opportunity of being on both sides of the House, and, no doubt, some hon. Members opposite are enjoying a similar experience. [Interruption.] If we have


persuaded the vast majority of the electors of this country that our view is right and the view of hon. Members opposite is wrong, I do not see why we cannot call that healthy. When I look at the Benches opposite, I know the majority is here and not there. However, that is rather away from the point we are discussing. I agree entirely, it is desirable to see both sides, and you can only see both sides by being prepared to go and see for yourself the side that seems less sympathetic to you, the one you like least. And when you have seen, if you have not had a sufficient opportunity, and if you think you were too much chaperoned, screened, and shielded to be able to make a proper report, come back and say so, as, I am sure, my hon. Friends will if they find that to be the case. But it seems to me that the attitudes of hon. Members opposite is a dog-in-the-manger attitude for a Party to adopt, some of whose members did not refrain from going to Germany in the last months before the war, did not refrain from going to Nuremberg, and did not refrain from sitting down with Nazi gangsters in this country and abroad. Nobody complained, and nobody criticised. When half a dozen hon. Members on this side accept an invitation, which hon. Members opposite could have accepted too, I think it is quite wrong to suppose, in advance, that those hon. Members are going to give a prejudiced report [Interruption.]

Mr. Nicholson: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth (Mr. R. J. Taylor) is accusing me of sitting down with Nazi gangsters. I have never accepted an invitaton to Germany. I went there last in 1933. Nothing would induce me to sit down with a Nazi gangster. I went with a Parliamentary delegation to Rome, and I saw the Pope and Mussolini, but I am neither a Roman Catholic nor a Fascist.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: It was not said that the hon. Member went to a banquet in Rome with Mussolini.

Mr. Nicholson: The hon. Gentleman was talking about Nuremberg and Nazi gangsters.

Mr. Silverman: May I say that I did not wish to suggest that the hon. Member was any of the things complained of? I know very well he is nothing of the kind, and that, when he went on his pilgrimage, he went with a perfectly honest inquiry

in his mind, and came back not prejudiced or partial to one side or the other. He went to see and inquire honestly, and he returned honestly. I do not complain in the least of his going, but what I am saying is that what he did in those years, and what his friends did, is just what my hon. Friends are doing on this occasion, and I am surprised that he should complain of it.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: I am perfectly certain that there is very little divergence of view about this delegation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Delegation?"] Yes, I prefer to use the word "delegation" because, having watched the corpse-like obedience of the party opposite, I do not believe that 11 Members of it would blow their noses without the permission of their party. Therefore, I suggest this is indeed a delegation consisting of 11 Socialist M.P's. and one-tenth of the Liberal Party which seems, perhaps, a fair enough representation of the Left Wing and the shilly-shally point of view. Nevertheless in considering the question of the composition of this delegation, it has to be realised exactly what happened. The circumstances are perfectly clear. The Yugoslav Government issued an invitation to Members of this House to visit Yugoslavia for these elections. That, I think, is entirely commendable, and this House, as a House should be grateful to Marshal Tito's Government for that invitation. It appears that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gateshead (Mr. Zilliacus) picked up this broadcast invitation, which appeared also in an obscure Sunday newspaper read by hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Austin: Would the hon. Member allow me to interrupt him for a moment? I am anxious to learn whether he is addressing this House in the capacity of a dramatic critic, or as a Member?

Mr. Baxter: I am not addressing this House in the capacity of a dramatic critic, or of a paid hireling of the T.U.C., or of a paid lawyer. I am not paid by any vested interest to be a Member of this House, as half you people are.

Dr. Morgan: I raise an objection to that. The hon. Member has made a charge that certain Members of this House are paid hirelings of the T.U.C.


I happen to be a paid employee of the T.U.C., a medical adviser to the T.U.C., and I am paid by them for my medical work, but not for my political work. I have never received a farthing from any organisation, of any kind whatever, in the course of my political career and, what is more, I do not intend to receive any such payment. Therefore, I object to, and resent very much, a charge of that sort, and I hope the hon. Member will withdraw it.

Mr. Baxter: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I never thought for a moment that he was paid, and what he is doing for the T.U.C. is honest work. I referred to those who are paid for being member of the Congress, which is a recognised thing, but I do not want to labour the point. Let us stick to the word "delegate." As I was saying, the hon. Gentleman " the Member for Gateshead picked this invitation out of the ether, or out of this large-circulation Sunday newspaper—we will not quarrel about that—and drew the attention of some hon. Members of the House to it. We have been told, over and over again, that any of us on this side of the House could have joined that delegation, and would have been welcomed. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman was doing the best he could to make it a representative delegation, but when he failed to do so he should at once have realised his responsibility. There is a way of communicating with the Conservative Party. It is no secret that every week its Members meet upstairs. How simple an act of courtesy it would have been to send word suggesting that the Conservative Party should join this delegation. We who have travelled to European countries, and have been in touch, on many occasions, with European politicians, know very well that, when this deputation arrives in Yugoslavia, it will be interviewed; its views will be broadcast, and they will be taken as the views of this country and of this House.
For instance, the question of King Peter may well be raised. These eleven honest men and one Liberal are practically bound to say—because they believe it is true—that, in this country, there is no sympathy for King Peter, and that will injure the Royalist cause. There are some people who remember that King

Peter, when little more than a boy, brought in his country and helped it to declare war against Germany, when that meant suicide for Yugoslavia. There are some of us not ashamed to remember how King George of Greece—[Interruption]—I should not have thought that I should have lived to see the day when the man who led his country against two Fascist dictatorships would have his name jeered at by the Government Front Bench. If the King of Greece could hear that laughter from the Front Bench he would have even a greater contempt for—[Interruption]. I am glad that the M.P's. have gone. I believe that they will bring back an honest, if confused, description of events there; and I hope that Yugoslavia is not paying the bill. I do not mind if His Majesty's Government subsidise the delegation, because that is a form of nationalisation. They have got to pay for everything, anyway, out of the taxpayers' money. A Government which is so addicted to controls that it is controlling the entire life of the people of this country more and more should have found it easy to arrange a deputation which was not so completely unrepresentative of this House and this country as the one which is now in Yugoslavia.

6.47 p.m.

Mr. Raikes: I feel the hon. and gallant Member has served a useful purpose by starting a good and lively discussion, but I think a number of false points have been made on both sides of the House in the course of this discussion. It seems to me our difficulty is this: Any Member of Parliament should be allowed to travel as much as possible under any ordinary conditions, but, in this case, an election is being conducted by a Government which is not absolutely unclouded so far as its democratic tendencies are concerned, and a Government which has been under a shadow of doubt ever since the collapse of the Tito-Subasitch Agreement. Hon. Members opposite know quite well that when that Government was recognised it was as the result of the agreement between the Subasitch side and the Tito side, and the Subasitch side represented the Royal Yugoslavs. The point I am raising is that the election was likely to be an unfair one. The fact remains that this is a large party—any party, I suppose, which reaches double figures can be called a fairly large party of Parliamentarians—going over


there, just at the time of the general elections, and they will be undoubtedly used by the Government who invited them as propaganda for their cause. That is in my view the beginning and end of it.
I do not much mind whether the delegation is entirely Socialist or not. What I object to is having what appears to be a Parliamentary delegation being brought over at the request of a gentleman who is conducting elections, to be used by him, or they would not have been invited, for some sort of propaganda by his controlled Press for his own party. The fact that Yugoslavs got in touch with the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Zilliacus) who has always been an apologist for every Communist-inspired Government in Europe—[Interruption]—If this is not an inspired Communist Government, perhaps hon. Members will tell me one which he has not defended in the course of the last few months. This deputation cannot bring back much information. Information for those who want it is coming from Yugoslavia week after week, and month after month, from those who know the language and have been out there for a considerable time. They do not get their information by going out for a few days, knowing nothing of the language, and being sponsored by a gentleman who used to be Comintern agent for the Soviet Government in Yugoslavia, before he assumed office. The only point in having this party sent over is to make propaganda for one side. There was an unfortunate interruption by the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. B. Baxter). He asked whether the delegation, if interviewed in Yugoslavia, would say that there was no sympathy for King Peter. I hope, if the delegation were interviewed, that it would be extremely guarded one way or another. That is an extremely good reason for not encouraging delegations of any side from going out to a foreign State, at the very moment when an election is being held. Let them go over in normal times, and, if possible, let them stay long enough to learn something.

6.53 p.m.

Dr. Morgan: I am sorry that this discussion, which is based on a good issue, has been spoiled by a great deal of partisanship which has nothing to do with the main point. Some of us are not afraid of the truth. I am not afraid of the truth, anyway. I never have been. I did as much for Spain as some of those who are

boasting now that they went to Spain as Members of Parliament, although I was not a Member of Parliament at that time. One is not impugning the good faith of these delegations. One is not saying that Members of Parliament should not be allowed by the Government freely to travel where they like. The point has been raised that this is not an appropriate moment to go, when there is an election taking place; but all these partisan issues are beside the point. The point is that it is most injudicious that one single Member of Parliament, after hearing a wireless broadcast invitation, should himself extend an invitation to certain selected Members of Parliament, either of the Opposition group or any other party.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: The hon. Member has been a Member of this House almost as long as I have. I think he will agree with me that every single one of the unofficial Parliamentary delegations to which I referred was arranged in exactly that way by an individual back-bencher Member of the House of Commons himself extending the invitation.

Dr. Morgan: Mistakes made in the past and mistakes made now do not excuse the point I am making. I do not agree that this is the normal procedure. It is an unusual procedure which has arisen in the last decade or two, and it is most unfortunate. I hold that an M.P. going as an individual is a different matter from a group or a deputation of M.P's. When a group of Members of Parliament go they get a certain amount of consideration due to the fact that they are a group coming from a Parliament. When invitations of this kind are issued, especially at a crucial moment in the history of a country, they should be considered on a wider scale, and the Government should have been asked for their views on the matter. The Empire Parliamentary Delegation might have been asked; although this case has nothing to do with the Empire. I think that ad hoc groups going out are wrong, and that there should be some regularisation of the position. A small group of men—or a single individual—should not really take upon themselves the right of asking their friends, or enemies, or comrades, to join with them in going out. I may be quite wrong in my view, but I think, from the point of view of the dignity of this House, and I am only concerned with doing the right thing by this House, that


it is wrong. I think that in future it is desirable that delegations of this character should, at any rate, have some authoritative backing from this House as a whole, rather than that the appointment of such delegations should be left to the initiative of individual Members.

6.57 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. McNeil): I am rather glad to have this opportunity of making plain to the House the exact position of His Majesty's Government regarding this matter. Whatever this group of Members of Parliament are doing, whoever extended the invitation to them, whoever is paying for this, it is not His Majesty's Government. I hope that I make it plain that I am not in any sense disapproving, but I was disturbed, at times, and puzzled, at other times, by the case made by the other side. It seemed to me that I was asked by the hon. and gallant Member who raised this subject and by the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. G. Nicholson) to place on Members of this House restrictions which are not placed on ordinary members of the public. My hon. Friend shakes his head, but, indeed, he did. For example, no exit permit is necessary to leave this country.
So far as we are concerned, the hon. Members who have gone in this party received exactly the same privileges, no more and no less, as are afforded to any member of the public who is prepared to pay 15s. for a passport. I hope we have made this plain. The only facility which the Foreign Office provided was one which is extended to all Members. Even if it had not been extended to the delegation, hon. Members could have obtained their passports in the normal way. As a matter of convenience, and to save the time of the House, if a Member is travelling it is quite usual to make arrangements at the Passport Office, that if he goes there at a certain time, he can have his passport handed to him. The pass ports were never inside the Foreign Office, were never in my hands. No correspondence passed between me and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Finsbury (Mr. Platts-Mills), who, I understand, is leading this group. It is true that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Dumfries (Major N. Macpherson) wrote to

me in connection with, but on a matter not arising directly from, the proposed visit of this group. Their passports, therefore, were provided in the normal way, and they could not have been stopped unless the Government had used against hon. Members of this House powers about which the House would be indignant if they were used by the Government against ordinary members of the public.
I have explained that an exit permit is no longer necessary. The Government, in response to pressure from all sections of the House, justifiable and keen pressure, wiped out the exit permit as soon as it was thought safe to do so. The matter of the visa is plainly not the concern of His Majesty's Government or the Foreign Office; the visa is a matter for the Government of the country to which the people propose to proceed, in this case, Yugoslavia. Transport was, I understand, provided by the Yugoslav Government, as they were quite entitled to do. At any rate, we did not provide it. I rather fear that the House, or at least some sections of the House, are tending to lose their sense of proportion here. I think that was primarily due to the fact that some of them, and none more markedly than the hon. Member for Wood Green(Mr. Baxter)—who I am sorry is not present—insisted on calling this group a delegation. There can be no excuse for such misuse of language, unless for the hon. Member, its misuse is his profession. It is not a delegation. Moreover the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), when he said that it was not a delegation, did say it would report back. Indeed it may do so, but to whom I do not know, nor does that lie within the knowledge of His Majesty's Government.
My right hon. Friend is at all times, anxious to assist any Members of this House by making available facilities which they think desirable for essential purposes. That is not a feature peculiar to him; it has been common with most Governments, and we will, so far as it lies within our power, do that. Naturally if the House, as a House, desires that a visit should be made, he will make available all the facilities at our disposal for such a visit, but in relation to private Members, and in relation to this group of Members who have proceeded abroad, I


must make it plain, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, that the limiting factor at this time is transport.

Mr. E. P. Smith: Is it a fact that the Yugoslav Government have another plane waiting to take over another cargo of hon. Members of this House? If that is so, will the invitation be a little more widely spread?

Mr. McNeil: I am sorry, and I hope that I will not seem at all rude in saying this, but I find it a full-time job being an Under-Secretary in His Majesty's Government. Let the Foreign Minister of Yugoslavia, who seems to have at least a dozen deputies on the other side of the House, answer the question which the hon. Member has just put. Plainly it does not lie within our competence to report upon the activities of the Yugoslav Government. Of course, if I may say so without offence, if the hon. Member was trying to make sure that he would be invited in the next party, I think he has made a good bid. But the limiting factor is transport, as my right hon. Friend asks me to convey to the House. There are many demands upon transport just now. One of those about which we are most keen is that business men from our country should get abroad, for the benefit both of our own country and of those countries which are visited. Our diplomatic 'plane facilities are very limited, and are fully engaged with ordinary diplomatic and other business. As I indicated, if it was the wish of the House, we should have to try and meet the House upon such a point, but we cannot hope to meet private Members in demands of that kind just now.

Captain Blackburn: Is it not of great importance to this country and to the world that Governments in Europe which are charged with being undemocratic, should have the opportunity of visits from Members of this House, for the purpose of allowing those Members to take objective views on whether the elections are being conducted fairly?

Mr. McNeil: I am certain it is important. I am not sure whether my hon. and gallant Friend is making the point in relation to the general subject, or in relation to what I said in regard to the shortage of 'planes.

Captain Blackburn: Transport.

Mr. McNeil: It is important, but so are a dozen other things. As we are told from the benches behind us and from the benches opposite day after day, we should get business men over; we should get more consular and diplomatic representatives over; we should increase our courier planes between here and the capitals of other European countries. The Government must try to assess which is the more important. Reluctantly we have to inform the House that we cannot make these facilities available to private Members. Indeed, if these private Members now proceeding as private Members to Belgrade, had had to turn to His Majesty's Government for transport, they would not have left our own capital. It is the Yugoslav Government which made all the arrangements, and I presume, but I only presume, that they are meeting the cost. I conclude as I began, by insisting that this is not a delegation, that His Majesty's Government have no responsibility for them, that His Majesty's Government are affording no facilities to them which it would not afford to any of His Majesty's subjects.

Orders of the Day — GERMAN POPULATIONS (EXPULSION)

7.9 p.m.

Mr. Stokes: I make no apology for returning once more to the very important subject which I raised about three weeks ago on the Adjournment—I put a further question about it to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs today—the question of the mass expulsions from Central Europe into Eastern Germany, occupied Germany. I regret to say that His Majesty's Government still have no information which they are able to give me. I will begin by recapitulating what has happened. This matter was first raised on 10th October because of the reports that were prevalent throughout the daily Press that 4,500,000 Germans, from Poland, Czechoslovakia and from Hungary, were to be forcibly expelled, starting at a rate of 30,000 per day from 15th October, and going on throughout the winter months—and that, despite the very strong recommendation of the Potsdam Conference that deportations and expulsions should cease, until they


could be carried out in a humane manner, and certainly until there had been a report from the Allied Commission as to the number which it was possible for the various zones in Germany to accept, and provide with reasonably proper accommodation.
This was followed by a full day's Debate on 26th October, when the matter was referred to by a number of speakers. The Foreign Secretary hardly touched upon it at all in his speech, and the right hon. Gentleman who wound up the Debate did not refer to it but dealt only with the food situation and the possibility of bringing more food to the starving people. The third occasion is today. I asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the fact that the Allied Commission had not yet reported on the rate at which expelled Germans could be received into occupied Germany, what action he had taken with the Governments of Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary on the decisions to expel 4,500,000 Germans at the rate of 30,000 a day, commencing on 15th October. The Under-Secretary replied' that His Majesty's Government had no official knowledge.
What are His Majesty's representatives doing overseas? I should have thought that on important matters of this kind inquiries could be made of Ambassadors. We have an Ambassador in Moscow and one in Warsaw. I do not know what the position is in Prague, but I think we have an Ambassador there too. Yet weeks elapse and His Majesty's Government have no official information. I am not blaming the Under-Secretary for not being able to give me a more explicit answer today—I understand some of the difficulties—but I revert to the whole sense of the speech that I endeavoured to make on 10th October, namely, that the terrible things that are happening in Europe today are just those very things which the people of this country thought they were fighting to prevent. Therefore, it is of the most vital necessity that whenever we get the opportunity in this House we should raise the issue, not only in order to press for information but to press His Majesty's Government to take the quickest possible action to stop this villainy. I did not have time oh the last occasion to develop the case in the way I

wished. Some hon. Members may say that is very fortunate; I do not know. The matter to which I now wish to refer was touched upon by the hon. Lady the Member for the Combined English Universities (Miss Rathbone) in the Debate on 26th October. I refer to the expulsions from Czechoslovakia. She said then that it appeared that these expulsions had stopped. I was not there to contradict her, nor do I wish to contradict her, but my information is entirely to the contrary, and as recently as the middle of last month these expulsions were continuing.

Miss Rathbone: I think what I said was that it was believed they had been mitigated, but that large numbers were still going across—not being expelled but being forced to flee, practically, by the harshness of the treatment meted out to them.

Mr. Stokes: I am obliged to the hon. Lady. The point I wish to emphasise today apropos the situation in Czechoslovakia is that many of these people who are now being expelled are anti-Nazi. As I said on that occasion, they are being shifted from an anti-Nazi camp in many cases to a Czech slave camp. Worst of all is a feature which has never been ventilated in this House. Towns are swept up at short notice. A serving officer, who shall be nameless but whose name I will gladly give to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, himself visited the country and told me precisely what goes on. He said people get knowledge of the next area to be forcibly evacuated. Then what he described as the thieves' train leaves Prague every day, containing individuals carrying empty suit cases, and proceeds to the place which is to be forcibly evacuated by the police or military. The village is surrounded and everybody is told to get out at short notice, often in 20 minutes. Young men are marched off literally into slavery. Women, children and old men are herded into camps to start with and are then told to march to the West and carry what they can. Then the thieves descend on the township, take the belongings of these people and return to Prague.

Mr. Scollan: The hon. Gentleman referred to some nameless officer. What steps have been taken to verify the statements which he made?

Mr. Stokes: I cannot take any more steps, because I cannot go to Prague.

Mr. Scollan: That means that the hon. Member is accepting the statement and broadcasting it in this House, obviously with evil consequences.

Mr. Stokes: I have reason to know that this man knows what he is talking about, because he and his family happen to be among the victims. He happens to be an anti-Nazi Sudeten German.

Mr. Scollan: What proof is there of that?

Mr. Stokes: I have told the House where my information comes from, and surely that is sufficient. My hon. Friend may not like it, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. These people are being driven in a most inhumane manner across the face of Europe. All the evidence is in support of what I am saying now.

Miss Rathbone: The evidence comes from several other sources besides the officer referred to.

Mr. Scollan: Polish sources.

Mr. Stokes: The great thing is to try to remain unprejudiced. This is a matter of humanity. I do not care who the people are. I did not fight in this war and I did not have very much to do with it. I was not a soldier, but I do not believe that any soldier fought this war to see women and children herded across Europe like a lot of cattle, and I do not think any fighting soldier would stand it. I mind much more about what they think than any other group or society in this country. It is not only in Czechoslovakia; it is not only in a Westerly direction. Seven hundred thousand Hungarians are also being forcibly ejected from Austria. Then I notice tonight a headline in the evening paper, "Refugees' plight desperate." Six hundred thousand Germans are to be forcibly ejected from the Russian-occupied zone of Germany to create more chaos in British-occupied Germany, without warning of any kind whatever. I cannot verify the facts, any more than my hon. Friend who interrupted me just now. I can only do my best within my limited means to inform the House of what I hear, and I think my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will bear me out when I say I do not leave him alone very much, and anything that comes to me I pass on to him.
It is apparently a fact, according to the latest news that we have, that the 4,500,000 expulsions to which I have referred are to continue, and yet His Majesty's Government do not seem to know anything about it. There is going to be the most appalling chaos in the British zone. It was pointed out on 26th October how the British zone had been well organised and there was a limited amount of food available, but that it would be impossible to deal with any more evacuations of a serious order, and if these teeming hundreds of thousands are to come flowing in there is not the slightest chance of being able to deal with the starvation situation in our own zone in the coming winter months. I want to appeal to His Majesty's Government to make the strongest possible representations to the Governments of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland and Russia to stop these deportations, or expulsions, or whatever you call them, now. It is no use saying that Russia does not influence the situation.
I asked this particular officer about it. I said, "This may be all boloney, what you are telling me. It may be all a one-sided story. It may be simply put about to discredit certain things that are going on there. What evidence have you that Russia can stop it if she wants to?" His answer was, "Precisely this. I can give you the name"—which he did and which I will gladly pass on to the Minister, but I will certainly not mention it in public—"of the owner of a factory"—in the town which he mentioned—"who was a well-known Nazi, and because he is working for the Russians nobody dares to interfere with him at all." I submit that if the Russian Government really put their foot down they could stop these abominations absolutely at once. But even that is not enough. As my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities said just now, it is no use stopping the expulsions unless proper protection is afforded to the people who are eventually doomed to expulsion but are left behind for the time being. Their situation may become absolutely impossible and it is absolutely necessary that proper protection should be afforded by their Governments.
Thirdly—and I say this to a Government whose head is a man whom we protected here throughout the war—the Czechoslovak Government ought to release the slaves at once and let the yon.
men get back to their families, if they can find them, and do what they can to help the situation during the coming winter.
I want to say just this in conclusion. I am the first to recognise that there is not much hope of permanent peace in Europe unless we and the Russians find a way of getting along together. I believe that, absolutely emphatically, but that means co-operation. You cannot have co-operation in a one-track way. Co-operation must come from that side as well. The Russians will find themselves, unless they are careful, in this appalling position, that the huge amount of good will that has been built up in this country for Russia will disappear to nothing almost overnight because of all these terrible things which are going on in Europe. I do, therefore, implore the Russians, if I can appeal to them through this House, to take such steps as they can now to stop this villainy and the awful suffering and torture which will ensue for so many human beings, unless it is stopped before the winter months.

7.23 p.m.

Mr. Boothby: I am very glad that the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) has raised this matter once again, and that he has spoken in such very moving terms. We all recognise his sincerity in this matter. I think all of us are sincere about it. I recognise also that the Under-Secretary of State has had a rather rough evening. He has had a heavy time for an Under-Secretary in having to reply to two Debates in rapid succession. He acquitted himself well last time; and I am sure he will do so on this occasion. The point I really want to put to him is this. I cannot understand why he should have to get up repeatedly from that Front Bench, as he did at Question time, and say that His Majesty's Government—the phrase is his own—have no official information about these deportations. If His Majesty's Government have no official information, they ought to have it. We have a pretty shrewd idea of what is going on; and His Majesty's Government have far better representation abroad than we have.
I hope the Under-Secretary will contradict me if I am wrong, but I think these deportations have started again at a rate 'of between 20,000 and 30,000 a day now. I am further informed—and I would like

my hon. Friend to answer this if it is not true—that our military authorities in the British zone in Germany have been told already by His Majesty's Government that they will probably have to accept another 4,000,000 deportees from Central and Eastern Europe this winter. If this is the case, it will be massacre on a very big scale. The hon. Gentleman opposite asked for authorities. I will give him one authority. Yesterday I met one of the most distinguished of the foreign correspondents of the United States. I will gladly give his name to any hon. Member afterwards who may wish to have it, but I do not want to give publicity to it in this House. He has spent the last three months in all the occupied zones in Germany and Austria, except the Russian one—in the British, the American and the French—and he has been a good deal in Berlin. I asked him whether large scale deportations were taking place, and he said they were, both from Poland and from Czechoslovakia. He further said there was no question that they were being carried out in direct contradiction of the agreement made at Potsdam that the deportations were to be made over a period, and in a humane manner.
As hon. Members will agree, I am not in the habit of dishing out sob-stuff to this House. I do not believe that it does any good; but this informant told me one story based on his own personal experience a few days ago, which made a very great impression on my mind. I am going to tell his story now. He was in the An halter Station in Berlin, where he saw a very great number of refugees, all very hungry and miserable. There was one old woman over 70 years of age sitting in a corner with a resigned expression on her face. She was reading a Bible. He went over and sat down beside her and asked where she had come from. She said from the far Eastern district of Silesia. She said she had been given 10 minutes' notice to get out of her house; and that all her men folk were dead. They had been killed in one way or another. She had just had time to pick up a few trinkets, such as one or two clocks and watches and a gold ornament. When she got to the frontier and was examined by the Russian guards, all these valuables were taken from her. and her sole remaining possession in the world was the Bible which she was reading.
My American correspondent said, "Where are you going to now?" And she just looked up and said: "I haven't the faintest idea." My friend said, and I will use his own words: "The final ironical touch is that when I looked over her shoulder, I found that the passage she was reading in the Bible was the Sermon on the Mount." That is a true story, from firsthand evidence; and I give it only as an example of thousands of cases all over Central and Eastern Europe at the moment. I am not certain of very much in this sanguinary world of ours; but I am certain that the people who fought this war did not fight it in order to murder by means of starvation the bulk of the people of Central and Eastern Europe. To put it on the lowest ground, it will not pay us; for famine and pestilence go hand in hand.
I do not want to attack any other country, and least of all the Soviet Union. I am on the record as having fought in this House and outside it for Anglo-Soviet friendship for the last 20 years; but there is no use blinking the fact that Russia could put a stop to this horrible business if she chose during the next few difficult months. To be quite objective, there is another side to the picture as well. It is also a fact that the great food-producing countries of the world are eating far too much to-day in a starving world; more, in fact, than is good for them, as I can testify from personal experience. The per capita consumption of food in the United States of America is, at this moment, substantially above what it was in 1939; and this is with half the population of Europe on the brink of starvation. The same is true of the other food-producing countries, including those of South America.
It will be asked, What practical steps can we take? Before I sit down I would like to indicate one or two. First of all, I echo the plea of the hon. Member for Ipswich that we should bring the strongest pressure of which we are capable upon the Soviet Government to suspend these deportations during the winter months; and also to allow us to have a look behind that iron curtain that has fallen across Europe from the Baltic Sea to the Adriatic. Unless and until that happens suspicion must continue in Europe, and as long as suspicion remains there can be no improvement in the present disastrous international situation.
My second point is that we should, at the same time, bring the strongest possible pressure, accompanied by a full statement of the facts, upon the United States and the other great food-producing countries of the world, to release more food for Europe in its present agony. The third thing I would suggest is that we should revive the Red Cross in Germany. Hon. Members may not realise that it has been abolished. Yet it is the only German organisation capable of bringing relief to these deported people. The ground on which it was liquidated—and here again I quote my American correspondent friend as the authority—is that it was once under the control of the Nazis. As every organisation in the last five or six years and before was under the control of the Nazis, that is not a very good ground for abolishing it. Provided we remove all Nazi influence in the organisation, there is a great deal to be said for our reviving it to carry out essential relief work in Germany during the next few critical months.
Finally, I would suggest that we might do something to reduce the swollen garrisons now in occupation of Central Europe. Hon. Members were no doubt, shocked, as I was, to read that there are practically 1,000,000 Allied troops occupying Austria. Such a spectacle is obscene, like a lot of flies battening on a carcase. Everybody knows that in the present condition of Europe all that is required for effective military occupation is an adequate Air Force, and a number of strong but comparatively small mobile mechanised columns that can be moved quickly from place to place. That is the way Germany held down Europe for five years. There is no reason whatsoever for having these vast numbers of troops, who ought to be back in this country building houses, battened on to these unfortunate people, particularly the Austrian people. What have they done to deserve to have one man for every three of their male population to hold them down, when they have never made the slightest attempt to rise?
We in this country should do everything that lies in our power to alleviate the situation. I am opposed to any reduction in our basic rations here, because I agree with the Minister of Food that we are literally down to the bone; and I am not prepared even to save women and chil-


dren from death by starvation at the expense of the health of the people of this country. But beyond this let us do all we can. Let us give everything that lies in our power to give. On this issue I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich that we have to standup for what we know in our hearts to be right, and against what we know to be wrong, even if it means standing up to the whole of the rest of the world. This country has done it before; and it must do it again. We shall never regret it. Because not only is this a moral issue; but in a final analysis, it is a fight for the survival of what remains of European civilisation and of all those Christian values—kindness, toleration, mercy—which, through many dark periods, have sustained that civilisation for over 2,000 years.

7.34 p.m.

Mr. Crossman: I have only one or two things to add to the admirable account we have heard from the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby). As one of the Members who has actually seen at least a small fragment of what is going on in Germany, I feel that I am entitled to detain this House for a short time. It is no good denying what is going on. Nobody who has been to Berlin and stood on a Berlin railway station, who has seen people lying in the station and who knew enough German to ask them how long they had been there, where they had come from and what had happened to them, can possibly question that an appalling tragedy is happening in Germany. It would be a terrible thing if hon. Members were to attempt to deny certain facts because they felt strongly for and were in sympathy with certain countries, or on the other hand to bolster up certain facts because they disliked a certain country. I hope that in any discussion we have on this subject we may remember this problem concerns the fate of millions of human beings, mostly women and children. It is indeed a sad fact that of the refugees who reach the British zone, practically all are women and children. No adult males seem to survive and come to our side. If we are going to deal with this human tragedy, it will not be by partisanship and by any propaganda which looks as if it does not appreciate the problems of our Allies.
There was so much with which I agreed in the speech of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen, that I think that he will allow me to make one point of criticism. It is a vast over-simplification to say that the Russian Government should overnight reverse this policy. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made it clear in his speech last week that things have got to the present crisis through ill in the past; but it is through an ill which this House connived at at the outset. We should never forget that this House and our friends on the other side of the Atlantic agreed to those major changes of Germany's Eastern frontiers which are the basic cause of all that has happened afterwards.

Mr. Stokes: We did not all agree. I certainly did not.

Mr. Crossman: I said that this House agreed. We have to remember that, if we agreed to that, as we did, it is not fair to state suddenly today that only one side agreed to that particular arrangement. I think it may be possible, and I pray that it may be, to arrange for these expulsions to be carried out more humanely than they are at present, but it would be fantastic for anyone who knows the temper of the Polish or Czech people to prevent these expulsions taking place in the end. Not one of the witnesses I have seen, neither Sudeten German, nor Czech, nor Slovak, nor Russian, nor Polish, but agreed with the fact, and the brutal fact, that these expulsions will take place from these territories. The problem is, how can we so organise it that millions of people do not die while they are being expelled. It is essential to see that problem fairly in order that we should not whip up a wave of emotion which can have no possible effect except to intensify the hatred in Eastern Europe. We must take enormous care not to do that in discussing the matter. It has been the fact that the wrong type of emotional appeal on this subject has had nothing but the wrong effect in Eastern Europe.
There is, however, one other thing which needs to be said today. We must understand the other reason for this major catastrophe. It is also something for which we have a partial responsibility. Why is it that the nations of Eastern Europe are behaving in this manner, utterly inhumanely and ruthlessly, to the


German population? It is out of a great and overwhelming fear, a fear of this country and the United States. It is literally true that the atomic bomb is more responsible than any other single factor for these refugees from Eastern Germany, Poland and Czechoslovakia. If this demoniacal fear had not entered into the hearts of the people of Eastern Europe, they would not have felt that it was essential to create this broad glacis by sweeping hundreds of miles of territory bare of population in order to protect themselves from this menace which they believe is coming from here.

Mr. Boothby: Is it not a fact that the existence of the atomic bomb has never yet reached the peoples to which the hon. Member refers, because it has never been broadcast from Moscow?

Mr. Crossman: Russian policy is not dictated by the vast majority of the people, but by one or two people who know the details.

Mr. Boothby: But the hon. Member said all those people.

Mr. Crossman: I said the terror that had pervaded that area. I will change it, and say that the terror that has pervaded the Kremlin and certain elements there is largely responsible. I would add that those who go to Eastern Europe have seen this universal fear, have found there also a belief—a wholly wrong belief—in the aggressive intention of the Western Powers to launch a war against Bolshevism. That belief is extremely widespread and very little propaganda is being done by this country to counteract it.
I think it is essential that this House, in dealing with the refugee problem, should try to understand the major factor which lies behind it. That major factor is fear, fear, insecurity and suspicion between the Western and Eastern Allies. Nothing which we can do by minor reliefs—and I hope everything possible will be done—will avail to prevent the starvation of millions of people. There is only one thing which would prevent this disaster and that is a united policy for Germany as between the Russian Government, the American Government, the British Government and the French Government. That unified policy is what I feel we in this House should concentrate on. In conclusion I would say that we shall

never get that unified policy for Germany as long as the insecurity created by the atomic bomb, and the fear of the West, hang over the minds of the rulers of Eastern Europe.

7.52 p.m.

Miss Rathbone: I had not intended to speak tonight and I will not keep the House long, as I do not want to repeat anything I said in the Debate a week last Friday or anything that has been said by previous speakers tonight, who have put the general case so excellently. I want to do nothing except to ask two or three factual questions which I hope the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, who I understand is going to reply, will be able to answer.
I think it is time that we knew a little bit more of the Government's story as to what is happening. Only in this morning's paper it was stated that the following statements were made on the authority of a high officer of the British Control Commission: first, that over 4,000,000 refugees were likely to cross into the British zone during the next few weeks; second, that up to 500,000 were already waiting on a particular bit of the frontier in readiness to cross; third, that the Russians have ordered that all within a certain assigned part of the Russian zone must leave it tomorrow if they originally came from one of the Western zones; fourth, that large numbers—two or three thousand—refugees are similarly crossing daily from the American zone into the British zone, although the American zone is much better provided than ours with food and is less congested, and much more adequately provided with rolling stock which might have been of great assistance to our people in handling those refugees whom they cannot prevent from crossing; and last—and this I think was alluded to last Friday—similar sudden incursions are beginning from Hungary into Austria, indicating that the German situation may be repeated. It is already pretty bad in Austria, and it is likely to become worse.
The question I want to ask is: Are these facts confirmed by knowledge at the disposal of the Foreign Office? If they cannot answer as to whether these things are true, why cannot they? They have not only the Minister and Ambassadors, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for


Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) referred, but the British Control Commission. Why cannot they find out from their own Military Government on the spot? They ought to be able to tell us whether these things are true. Secondly, I want to know, if they have reason to believe that they are true, what actually have they done or are they intending to do immediately to try to stop these floods of new immigrants or, so long as they cannot stop them, what are they going to do to prevent the people who are coming into our zone from starving to death? We know the various steps suggested by my right hon. Friend the Junior Burgess for Oxford (Sir A. Salter) who opened the last Debate. He said that this wholesale starvation was unnecessary and that it could be stopped because the supplies were available.
It is however true that most of the specific steps he suggested were relatively long-term measures, the greater production of coal in the Ruhr and a number of things that would take a long time, but there was one thing he mentioned which would not presumably take very long. That is to secure the release of some of the stocks that are held in Europe by the military authorities, stocks of food, clothing and motor transport which are already on the Continent and which they could lay their hands on quickly. If this immigration into our zone cannot be stopped, therefore, is anything being done to see that the people do not starve, either by releasing the stocks already in our possession or by trying to secure more supplies, especially from those nearby countries like Denmark and Sweden which are believed to have large quantities of food and other supplies ready, and who are willing to sell them? Surely it is possible, in face of this frightful necessity to prevent the starvation of millions of people, to get hold at any rate of those nearby stocks—those already held in the Army reserves and those which can be bought from such countries as Sweden and Denmark. We want to know from the Foreign Office, first, how far do they confirm the facts we have reported, and second, if they do confirm them, what are they doing to deal with the situation either by trying to stop the immigration or by relieving the appalling distress which will otherwise undoubtedly result?

7.48 p.m.

Mr. James Hudson: I feel that hon. Members on this side of the House can scarcely hold their peace on this matter without putting in grave peril all that they stand for. I am deeply grateful to the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) in that he has found it possible to raise this subject again. I realise, of course, that we had a Debate in the House quite recently on the general question, but the situation facing us in Europe today, with the problem of 4,500,000 additional persons moving into our zone, is really a sufficient challenge in itself to keep Debates going in this House until that problem is faced and dealt with. Our complaint today—at any rate, my complaint—is that the Government seem not to know what the situation really is. One hon. Member on these benches has protested that we quote authorities that we cannot authenticate. It may be that we do, but I heard two gentlemen in a Committee Room in this House, as many other Members heard them, only a few days ago; one was a leading member of the Friends' Ambulance Unit, a man with considerable legal training who knew how to present a case without over colouring it, and the other was associated with the military judicial functions that have been practised in Berlin, and they stated the actual facts as they saw them. A good number of hon. Members of every party were present when those statements were made, and they were appalled by the story that was told.
It has been said that it is no good introducing "sobstuff" into this House, although the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) did it with great success, and was well listened to, in his statement about the poor woman with her Bible. But there is this problem of 4,250,000 people, almost entirely working people. Let hon. Members who belong to the Labour Party remember that. The better-off people have been able to shift for themselves. Those great queues in the side-street just beyond the Anhalter station in Berlin were working people; they stood there not for one day, but for anything up to five days, waiting their turn for the little piece of bread that was issued to them as a half-day's ration, and then they must be moved somewhere else to endure another five days of the same treatment. That is a situation that no great country such as ours can hear of


without reacting. It is because I believe that we have a Foreign Secretary who can react to such a situation that I make my plea tonight. The other day I heard my right hon. Friend describe what apparently he saw by accident. This, again, adds point to my complaint that the Foreign Office cannot tell us in detail what is happening. When the Foreign Secretary was in Berlin he saw a drifting crowd, as he said, going one way hopelessly and hungry, and another drifting crowd going the other way, equally hopelessly and hungry, and he was moved to think of the awful consequences of conducting war in the way that we have felt compelled to conduct it during the last four years. As I listened to my right hon. Friend, I felt that George Lansburyhad come to life again in his words. I am certain that if the Foreign Office would get to know the facts, and not simply state, as they have done, that they do not know, they would be in a better position to approach the House and in a better position to approach Russia.
I am not one of those who seek in this Debate to cast any sort of censure upon Russia. I agree with the hon. Member who said that the situation that now faces us will have to be shared in common and that the responsibility for it will have to be taken in common by us all. As the hon. Member said, we have responsibility with Russia for the wrong division and the wrong fixing of boundaries out of which this thing has arisen. We are equally responsible for that zoning of Europe into different parts, and where a problem develops which is an integral problem, all of us have responsibility for it. That zoning ought never to have been tried; since it has been tried, we are not in a position to throw the blame upon Russia for the situation which has arisen. I agree, too, with the hon. Member's references to the atomic bomb and the responsibility of what is taking place in that field for the action of Russia. After all, it was not Russia that tried the atomic bomb. It was ourselves and the Americans. The right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) told the House that he and the American President had taken it on their conscience; it was not Russia that Jet loose this disastrously destructive process upon the world; and now, with the American President holding the secret for some future purpose, it is no wonder the Russians are sus-

picious and no wonder they do not listen to us when we make human appeals about the suffering that faces them and us in Europe. Therefore, I make my address tonight not to the Russians but to ourselves.
I beg the Government to recognise that this issue is one of the most vital that faces them. If they cannot find some vital remedy, some alleviation of the sorrows and struggles through which the common people of Europe, the work-people of Europe, are passing, I feel that the gravest reflection and punishment will fall upon us all. I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving us the opportunity to keep alive this issue in the House, I support what has been said by other hon. Members, and I beg the Government to treat this issue as one of the very gravest moment.

7.56 p.m.

Colonel Oliver Poole: The only reason I presume to intervene in the Debate is that I have fairly recently been a senior administrative officer in Germany, and it is possible, therefore, that I look on this problem rather more through the eyes of the Control Commission and the military authorities than as a politician. I want to consider it more statistically than has been done—quite rightly—in the rather sentimental approach which other hon. Members have made to it. To treat this problem as a statistical problem is the only way to solve it.
But before one can even discuss the matter, there is one fundamental answer which the Government must give, and I very much doubt whether the Under-Secretary can give it tonight; in fact, I do not even ask him to give it tonight. We have got to make a decision now as to what is to be our attitude towards the quadripartite control in Germany. All the areas from which the refugees are coming are Russian-controlled, and it is no good thinking that we can make approaches to other Governments asking them to mitigate or alter the number of people that are sent. We must get Russian agreement on the quadripartite Commission in order to get the thing put into effect. We have got to face the fact that quadripartite control in Germany, due not only to disagreement between ourselves and the Russians but between all four parties, is at the moment tottering, and it is the policy of the Control Com-


mission at this moment that it is to be kept going at all costs, not so much for the sake of a solution in Germany, where the problem might be able to be solved under zone arrangements, but for the sake of the whole future of the world.
These facts are well known in the Control Commission, and that is one of the reasons I join in pressing the Government to make a statement and to give authoritative figures. We have the whole of the British Intelligence Service, which told us exactly what was happening all through the war. In one operation after another we had the finest intelligence as to what the enemy was going to do. We knew exactly. I assure the House that we know now a very great deal of what is going on. I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary will want to ask me to tell him where he can get the information. I know it quite well, and he knows it better than I do. The reason I urge the Government to make a full statement is that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen lack information. They get up and make statements, in all sincerity, that are not altogether quite true. I have heard made tonight statements which are not in accordance with the facts, but which it is very difficult for me to refute, and these statements cause great difficulty to the people who are running the Control Commission in Germany and keeping the quadripartite policy going. Therefore, before we can discuss the question of stopping the influx of refugees, that is the first matter that must be considered.
The second point I want to raise is the question of getting the Russians to agree to stop the refugees coming. There is no doubt that many of them are being expelled, but I also believe that many of the Germans coming out of those areas are coming out because they are frightened of the consequences if they stay. A great many of them are being moved by the Russian Government, but a great many are coming voluntarily because they are frightened of what will happen if they stay there.
Although a statement was made by an hon. Member opposite the other day that conditions in the Russian zone were better than those in the British, I doubt whether the Government could confirm whether that was true or not. The British zone

is probably the most pleasant to live in, and large numbers are comfortable. I know from my own experience that moving refugees in small numbers and under ideal conditions, with an extremely efficient military machine, is a most difficult and heart-breaking performance. I have seen Dutch refugees being moved out of France, and refugees in Italy and Sicily, and it is a most heartrending performance even on that minor scale. The Russians have not the administrative machinery either to move large numbers of refugees efficiently and humanely or the military control or efficiency to stop them from moving. I do not believe that we could do it ourselves, and I know it is a fact that the Russians cannot do it. It is not a question of saying to the Russian Government, "Stop this mass movement of refugees which you have started"; it is the whole trend of large numbers of people moving which cannot be stopped at such short notice as that. The Government could make a protest to the Russian Government, and what would be the reply?

Mr. Stokes: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggest that the announcement that another 4,500,000 are to be removed could not be reversed, and surely if it is to go on it will accentuate the difficulties?

Colonel Poole: I say most emphatically that it cannot be reversed. I am sorry; I thought the hon. Member meant, Could they be turned round and sent back? They could be stopped. I think I am right in saying that 1,750,000 refugees have so far been received into the British zone out of the 2,000,000 they were expecting, and arrangements for 2,000,000 were made. I saw the arrangements that were made and they were the best that could be made. They are expecting a total of 4,000,000 during the winter. Arrangements have been made for 4,000,000 to be received in the British zone. Here is a question which an hon. Gentleman has answered. The whole question of feeding the people depends upon the import of wheat into Germany. We want a categorical assurance that the wheat that was allocated to Germany and has been the subject of a great deal of negotiation is in fact going to Germany, or is it going to other places? For every 1,000,000 refugees who come into the British zone, 4,000 tons of wheat a week are required, and if you increase the numbers you have


to increase the import of wheat. There is great concern in many quarters—because we have not the information—lest wheat destined for Germany has been held up, and the statement made that there would be no rationing of bread in this country does not lead us to believe that more will go to Germany

Mr. Boothby: Is the hon. and gallant Member stating categorically to the House that 4,000,000 more refugees are coming to the British zone this winter—4,000,000 more or 4,000,000 altogether?

Colonel Poole: Four million altogether are expected by the Control Commission, who are doing their best to make arrangements to receive them, but they will be of the slenderest nature despite the fact that we have perhaps the most efficient administrative machine. The last point I would urge on Members of the House is not to rely too much on the personal experiences of people whom they meet, or upon hon. or right hon. Members who pay visits to Germany and the British zone or upon journalists, or upon refugees who come out, because that is most disastrous. The Chief of Staff of the Control Commission said to me the other day that he wished that Members of this House did not always want to go to Berlin, because they saw conditions there which are so very much worse than in the rest of Germany. The last thing he wanted was to prevent them from seeing conditions in Berlin, but he did not want them to think those conditions were the same all over the British zone.
It is important that this should be faced as a statistical problem. It is, as Field Marshal Montgomery called it, "the Battle of Winter" and should be faced in exactly the same way as any military operation, and so far from dealing with it in sentiment, that must be cut to the minimum. It is for that reason that I urge the Government to make a statement and to give the maximum number of facts which are available, so that hon. Members do not say things which are perhaps quite true but which embarrass the military authorities.

8.6 p.m.

Mr. Proctor: I rise to address the House for the first time on a subject on which I think there is considerable unanimity of opinion. My mind goes back to what I think was the greatest

fact of modern history, and that is the formation of the Soviet Union. Ever since the Soviet Union came into existence it has been obsessed with one thought, and that is, that at some time or another it would have to face an attack from the other nations of the world. Unfortunately, there was very strong evidence upon which that thought was based and, more unfortunately still, that attack did in fact come about. The Soviet Union faced the whole forces of Europe, organised under the Nazi power, and those forces were hurled at the Soviet Union. We in this country watched with a kind of breathless admiration the tremendous struggle which the Soviet Union put up, in a military sense, at that time. We saw armies retire across a vast continent, and we saw her people and her rulers, faced with the most terrible choice that ever confronted rulers or people, put into operation the policy of the scorched earth.
Those who stood up against and fought that menace and who, fortunately for us, succeeded are the same people to whom we are appealing tonight and it is not much use our talking sobstuff. I am very much impressed myself by the story the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) gave us and by all the horrible stories that come out of Europe, but unless we can remove from the minds of the Russians the thought that there will be another attack upon them, I do not think we can settle this great problem that we have before us tonight. Do not let us delude ourselves. It is not a European problem. This problem does not concern only the 4,500,000 or 5,000,000 we are talking about. This problem concerns the whole world, and the future of civilisation depends upon how we deal with it. I was much impressed myself when I read of the terrible sufferings of the people in Holland, and when one looks down through Europe and round into the Balkans, the picture is really terrible indeed. I implore this House not to think of this problem as only a problem of Eastern Europe, but to think of it as a problem of European civilisation as a whole. If we do that, I believe we can do something grand, something great and something wonderful today, but the sands of time are running out for us. We should not have any doubt whatever about that.
Looking at the world—and it is a very fascinating thing to look at it as a whole, and it is the way we have got to look at it if we are going to settle this problem—we find that humanity can be moved to great feats of organisation in three ways. First of all, on a basis of war. It is most painfully easy to organise the whole world on the basis of war, and, when one thinks of the magnificent organisation that the United Nations brought into existence just before D-Day—the most marvellous organisation that the world has ever seen—and when we put on the other side the organisation which the Germans and the Japanese had, we realise that we had a world that was completely organised for war. If we put into this problem as much effort as was put into that problem, we shall be able to settle it in three days. A few months of organisation now on the basis of the war organisation might easily save Europe at the present time.
The second basis upon which we can organise the world is the basis of trade. We have our different opinions as to the basis on which trade should be organised—by private or public enterprise. It is not as easy a basis upon which to organise the world as the basis of war, but I believe it can be done, though it will take longer and be more difficult. The third basis upon which humanity can be moved is that of a great human appeal to charity, and I believe that what is wrong with the world today, is that we are trying to move from war organisation to trade organisation without that cushion of humanity which is so necessary when passing from one to the other.
We have heard from some hon. Members that it is a very bad thing to send Members of Parliament to Yugoslavia to have a look round and see what are the conditions so far as the conduct of the Elections is concerned. I was myself, if I may digress for a moment, very much amused to find hon. Members on the other side suggesting that we should have Government control of our movements when going outside this country. I thought that was a very dangerous thing, and I thought the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Zilliacus) had done a little bit of private enterprise when he arranged that visit, that almost commended itself to hon. Members opposite. I believe

that this House as a whole should send representatives to Europe to make a quick investigation of the whole of the conditions there, and that we should then appeal, in the name of the House of Commons, to the whole world to come to the rescue of Europe in what is the greatest humanitarian problem that has confronted us for a generation. I believe that if we did that we could solve the problem. Are we, in this generation, so much more puny than the people who have gone before us?
After the last war we had, associated with the name of Hoover, an enormous organisation for the relief of Europe. In the days of the great Russian famine we had, associated with the name of Dr. Nansen, a marvellous world-wide organisation that went to the assistance of those who were tortured in that terrible time. I think myself that, if this House and the Government did bestir themselves, there is a wealth of human feeling throughout the world to which we could appeal. I was much impressed by the statement by the Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) the other evening, when he showed us that there is in existence in the world today all the necessary things for saving European and world civilisation. All that we need to do is to organise the good will and good feeling of the world, and I believe we can accomplish the task by that means.
It has been said that the whole question of the atomic bomb revolves around this matter. The whole question, in my belief, is one of good feeling, comradeship and trust amongst the nations. Can we rise to that great height? If we gave the Russians all the secrets of all the infernal weapons that exist in the world, I do not believe that we should be taking the necessary steps to achieve world confidence. The only way to get world confidence is to set up an international organisation that will really be a police force for the world, and I believe that that should be our policy, and that we should propose to the rest of the world, as quickly as possible, that all these weapons should be placed under that international authority, and, in that way, build up the confidence of the world so that we should be able to carry out this our policy. I think myself that we should, from this House and from this country,


make a tremendous effort to save European civilisation. I think that we, in the British House of Commons, are especially placed in a position in which our voices would be listened to, because I believe that, on this great issue, we can be absolutely united, and that, by saving Europe, we shall set the example that will save ourselves as well as civilisation.

8.17 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Rees-Williams: I congratulate the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor) on his magnificent speech. Of all the speeches to which I have listened in this House, it is the one which has moved me most. I would like to do more; I would like to carry on from where the hon. Member left off, because I think he has got at the truth of this matter. I do not consider that this is merely a matter of economics; it is a matter of idealism in appealing to the world. We know very well, from what that great expert the Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) has told us, that the food is there and that it is just a matter of getting it to the people who want it.
We are now faced with one of the great tragedies of history. There is no doubt that a great drama is unfolding itself before our eyes—a tragic drama—and we are told that there is a great problem to be solved in Europe this winter. There has always been a problem after every war, but man has not always solved it as we are trying to solve it now. Right from the early days of history trouble has arisen from the relationship of the conqueror to the conquered persons in the territory occupied. In the early days, it is true, there was very little mercy and very little humanity, but, with the coming of the ideals of Christianity and, particularly, of the principles of chivalry, after a time, more humane practices began to steal through the barbarism of war.
The great commanders, through the course of history, began to develop, among themselves, the usages of war, which, to some extent, softened its hardships, and, as time went on, these usages developed into the customs of warfare, until, finally, at the end of last century, the great nations met together, and, in 1907, at The Hague, a Convention was drawn up to deal with this very matter—a Convention which is still binding upon every nation

which signed it, and every great nation did sign it. That Convention said in the Preamble that we could not possibly foresee every detail likely to arise in the future, but wherever they had not stipulated for it in express words in this Convention, the principles of humanity and the doctrines of human justice must prevail. I cannot remember the exact words but that was the effect of them.
How far have we got? We now see that, so far from the principles of humanity prevailing, millions of people for whom the Allies are responsible are likely to die, and from the worst of all deaths, from starvation, from cold and from disease. This seems to me to show that so far from the world progressing, as we had all hoped it would progress, it is going back, far back from the middle ages right into the dark ages of mankind. We now see tonight the result of neglecting this principle, namely, that it is the duty of the Occupying Power to look after and to safeguard the private individuals living in occupied territory. We see now that large numbers were driven out of occupied Poland, of Czechoslovakia, of Hungary, and were sent into the Russian zone. That zone cannot now feed them, and our zone is anticipating a large influx of these persons. We, too, cannot feed them under the present conditions, and so the fate of these unfortunate people is in the balance, and the fate of the persons in our zone is in the balance because the area to which they are sending them—our zone—is in itself in a very precarious position.
When we rushed to the Elbe and to the Baltic ports last April, large tracts of country were left practically without any government at all. A few British officers, three or four, would be running a territory as large an an English county. Owing to the order of General Eisenhower we removed from office all persons who had any affiliation's with the Nazis. That was a very wide category, including people who in this country would be regarded as in the A.R.P. I am not grumbling at that; I am merely stating it as a fact. The result was that administration practically ceased to exist except on a purely community level—a little township here and there. In addition, in their retreat the Germans had blown up most of the bridges, both railway and road bridges, and thus there were no communications


whatsoever for the civilian population. That position is getting much better, but I cannot see how it will stand the influx of another 2,000,000 people this winter.
In Berlin itself the position is very serious. I do not depend on casual informants; my informants are from Berlin—the legal, police and the other departments in Berlin—and I have a fairly good knowledge of what is going on there day by day. The food position is very serious. In our zone, in some of the districts in Berlin, they are not getting anything like what they are reputed to be getting. Unfortunately, I feel quite confident that some of that food is going into the black market. Indeed, an inquiry was held recently to discover where the food which was supposed to be supplied to the in habitants had gone and why it had not reached them. Perhaps, in due course, the Foreign Secretary will let us know the result of that inquiry.
So that on all accounts we can see that Europe this winter faces a most terrible position. I would like to put it for a moment from the point of view of the ordinary soldier. We have become so used to hearing about mass disaster that, to a certain extent, our feelings have become insulated against these various horrors, but when you see them on the spot, then a very different picture is left in the mind. I do not think any hon. Member would see what I have seen in Berlin and not feel affected. I do not think any hon. Member of this House would see little boys hungry, ill, tired, crying in the rain; would see women lying at the side of the road obviously in the last extreme of pain and exhaustion; would see these milling crowds of refugees, and have some of them come up to you and ask you to help, saying they are in the last extreme of exhaustion, while you know that you can do nothing for them—I do not think anyone would experience this and not be affected.
That is the position that faces the soldier. It is all very well for people in this country to harden their hearts; he cannot harden his heart, he is in the middle of it, and, as one who was only a fortnight ago a soldier, I say that that position must be ended. I agree with the hon. Member for Eccles that it is the bounden duty of His Majesty's Government, of the Russian Government, and of

the American Government to put an end to it; otherwise we shall have no hope for humanity, because this is a matter well within our resources.

8.27 p.m.

Sir Arthur Salter: I do not propose to add either to the arguments or to the proposals that have been made in this Debate. I could scarcely add to the strength of the case that has been put before the Government this evening. I would only ask the Government to consider what has been said, reinforced as it is by the Debate which took place on 26th October, and by the previous Adjournment Debate, and have in mind also the Motion signed so very largely and so very influentially by hon. Members from all over the House. I would ask them to go over those Debates and that Motion and consider whether some of the proposals there cannot be adopted or, where they are being adopted, whether more cannot be done and done more quickly.
I want especially to call the attention of the Government to the fact that almost every hon. Member who has spoken tonight has said, "First of all we want more information on this very important matter." If the Government have not got the information, the yought to get it, and they ought to give it to us as quickly as possible. But I want to go a little beyond the urgent information that is directly relevant to this matter of the expulsion of the Germans. Looking at the distress of Europe as a whole and the problem of this winter, I want to repeat the appeal I made to the Government on 26th October—that they will provide in a White Paper, or other suitable document, a summary in graphic form, not voluminous but comprehensive, of the main information that is in their hands as to the conditions in different parts of Europe and of the resources that are available in the world. I am quite sure there are things that we can still do. I am still more sure that there are things that can be done on a much wider scale by countries with ampler resources, and I am sure there is a great fund of good will that has not been fully utilised.
If such a paper as I have in mind were prepared and published with the authority of the Government, there would be many in this country and in the Press of the United States who would draw upon this


information and do what otherwise cannot be done; they would bring to the surface, develop and make a real factor in action, the unutilised, the deep treasures of public good will on the other side of the Atlantic as well as this side. I made this appeal on 26th October, and the answer was first, "No." I repeated the appeal later in the evening, and the answer was then, "We will think again." I sincerely ask the Government to see whether they cannot produce a picture—for which the information does exist—which I think would be invaluable in helping this country and America to deal with the problems which confront us.

8.30 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. McNeil): I first of all want to add my congratulations to those which have already been offered to my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor) for his moving and praiseworthy speech. It has just occurred to me, Mr. Speaker, that I should have first asked your leave to speak again in this Debate. I hope I may have the leave of the House. Having said that, I want to ask the indulgence of the House—akhough it is rare from this Box—because I did not know until I came into the Chamber, that this subject was to be raised. I am not in the least complaining; indeed, I am in the debt of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) for giving the House another opportunity to discuss a matter which moves him so much, and for giving the Government another opportunity for considering what the House has to offer towards a solution of this problem.
I am obviously ill-prepared, but I will attempt to address myself to the various questions which have been put to me. Perhaps the House will bear with me if my answers are in general terms, but I do not happen to have the exact figures now for which they ask. The hon. and gallant Member for Oswestry (Colonel Poole) dealt in a rather more detailed fashion with the figures which have now become common usage in the Press, and to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich first drew our attention. Let me say, without qualification, that there is no agreement, to which His Majesty's Government are a party, upon this figure of 4,000,000 or 4,500,000. It is pointless to appeal to us for more precise informa-

tion about this agreement, because this agreement does not exist.

Mr. Stokes: I did not attempt to say that there was agreement; I asked whether His Majesty's Government have any information on the decision taken by the three Governments to expel a further 4,500,000?

Sir. McNeil: The answer is, still, "No." Let me, as fully as I can, indicate from where the figure of 4,500,000 was probably derived. We did agree to accept 1,750,000. I was asked if we had had that number. I cannot tell, and I say most pointedly to the hon. and gallant Member for Oswestry there are two reasons why it is impossible to give precise figures. One is that, as we all know, the movement of these people is so irregular. Second, even if it were continuous we have not the man-power on the spot to make accurate counts. Naturally, we have to make some assumption, we have to try and arrive at a figure upon which we might plan, and I want to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich that privately, unilaterally, we have planned against 4,000,000, that is 1,750,000 plus the expectation, at a later date, that there might be another 2,000,000. But we have never been informed that there would be that number of people deported. We have never taken part in any conversations and discussed that figure. It is completely a planning figure.
The hon. and gallant Member for Oswestry again dealt in some detail with a matter which concerns the House, as did my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby). It is not true that wheat designed for our zone has been stopped. It is, of course, true that not all the wheat is directly under our control, but I can say without qualification, or any attempt to evade—although I have not the exact figures—that His Majesty's Government have made desperate efforts to secure what wheat lay within our control, and that that wheat is now actually moving towards the people within our zone. We have been able to provide, subject again, to weather conditions, additional potatoes. We are providing certain preventive foods, which we have earmarked for children. We are, of course, aware that no solution can be found for this food question unless countries with ampler resources make their contribution.
I had better make it plain that although we are, with desperation, doing all we can, it would be misleading the House if I pretended for a second that the resources we have under our control are, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, adequate. They are not, but they are all we have. They have been obtained only by strain and some sacrifice by our own people.
I would like to tell my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) that we have not lost sight of the possibility of producing a White Paper that might meet the purpose he has in mind. Without detracting from my admiration for the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles, perhaps I might address a word to my hon. Friend the Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. H. Hudson), and my hon. Friend the Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman). This is a most complex problem. I do not pretend that I know all the causes, and I am certain that no one in His Majesty's Government would, but I am afraid it is dangerous to try to argue that the basic cause is the atom bomb.

Mr. Proctor: As the hon. Gentleman is associating me with that remark, I would say that I never intended to convey that impression, and it will be interesting to see in Hansard exactly what I did say. I did not intend to suggest that the atom bomb was the basic problem.

Mr. McNeil: It would be inexcusable for me to attribute something to a maiden speech which was not said, and I beg the pardon of the House, but I am very surprised that I so completely misunderstood my hon. Friend. At any rate, I did not misrepresent the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for East Coventry. This problem occurred six months before the atom bomb was used. I know some people will support me when I say that, who will not support me when I say that the attack is not exclusively, or wholly, against our Soviet Ally. The people with whom we have the main difficulty here are the Poles, and, to a minor extent, the Czechs and the Hungarians. Perhaps, too, I might be permitted to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich on the question of the Czechoslovak camps. We have had a report from our Ambassador at Prague on these camps, and I would make it plain that they are far from desirable, and that I am sure the

Czech Government would be the last people to claim that they were, but there has been a steady improvement in these camps, and I think it proper that His Majesty's Government should acknowledge that here.

Mr. Stokes: Can His Majesty's Government possibly approve of slave camps, however well conducted?

Mr. McNeil: I am sure I did not say we approved. I said that I thought, in this tense and complex situation, we ought to admit that our information from Czechoslovakia persuaded us that there have been improvements and that the Government in control of these camps had the intention to improve their conditions. I think I ought to repeat that our information is still unofficial and not precise. The Press report, to which two hon. Members referred, is substantially the same as the report we have from the Berlin Radio. One of the points made in the report was that people who had not been domiciled in Brandenburg were being asked to leave. I think the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) said as from tomorrow, but I am not sure of the date. I should make it plain that, in fact, it was agreed at Potsdam that the people should be moved into the zone which was normally their domicile, that is to say, the people who had fled into Brandenburg for one reason or another, mainly because of bombing in our own area, should be moved back to their homes, and we are partners to that decision.

Mr. Stokes: In "an orderly and humane manner."

Mr. McNeil: The movement was to take place on a reciprocal basis of one for one. There has been no agreement upon the date, and, of course, as my hon. Friend said, there was the overriding proviso that all movements of that kind should take place in an orderly and humane manner. In addition, there was agreement that it should be stopped until the report had been received, which we have not yet received. I think there is little to add except, again, to insist that there is no problem which concerns His Majesty's Government more than this.

Mr. Boothby: May I ask a question about the liquidation of the German Red Cross? Could the hon. Gentleman say anything about that?

Mr. McNeil: Yes, and I am indebted to the hon. Gentleman for raising the point. Again I am speaking without a brief, but I am certain I am right. It is true that, legally, for reasons which I hope my hon. Friend will not press me to give, the Red Cross has come to an end in that area. His Majesty's Government will not lose sight of this in its representation, but I ought to add that our information leads us to believe, whatever its legal status is, that in many areas the Red Cross is working most effectively in a local manner, as my hon. Friend and I would expect the Red Cross to work. His Majesty's Government are in no danger of thinking of this problem as some part of a political jig-saw. I have admitted that we lack precise information but we have from day to day a stream of information about the misery, the suffering and the hopelessness of these people. As my right hon. Friend said, we will continue to think of these people as human souls, and whatever methods we can command, we shall use in an effort to ease their position.

Mr. Stokes: May I again ask the hon. Gentleman a question, which both the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) and I, myself, have already put to him? Will His Majesty's Government make representations to the Governments mentioned on the Order Paper today in regard to their decision, announced by the Press, to expel a further 4,500,000 people at the rate of 30,000 a day commencing on 15th October this year?

Miss Rathbone: I have one further question to ask the hon. Gentleman. Will he deal with the point, which I have never heard suggested before today, that large numbers of people were also seeping in from the American zone into ours, although the American zone was far better able to feed them? Does he know anything about that?

Mr. McNeil: I have absolutely no information that there is any ascertainable movement from the American zone. I make it plain that there must be, and, indeed, there is, movement of people in tens and twenties across the boundaries of the various zones, but we have no information which would lead us to conclude that there is any appreciable, much less a substantial, movement from the

American zone to ours. Then there was the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich. We cannot make representations upon an agreement or decision which we do not know exists. We have no reports of them except the reports which are in the Press, and which my hon. Friend has put before the House.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: May I put a question to the Minister, as to whether there is any effective channel of information through the Allied military control?

Mr. McNeil: We have our channels of information. I have explained, very briefly, how confused is the situation. I am sure no one who has listened to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, or to any Member of the House who has been there, would expect us to have reliable and accurate reports of the situation. Indeed, if we could have reliable and accurate reports, the situation would not exist.

Orders of the Day — EX-SERVICEMEN (RETAIL BUSINESS LICENCES)

8.51 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Whale undoubtedly these tragic problems must weigh most heavily on the minds of men at this time, nevertheless, at home each of us has a personal question to answer: the question of how he is to make his living. In the short time left, I would like to draw attention to the problem, in particular, of the soldier, sailor or airman, who, returning from the Services, desires to set up in business on his own account, and finds himself faced with almost unsurmountable obstacles. This is a very serious problem. May I say a word about release under Scheme C? I want to congratulate the Government upon having introduced a method by which men with one-man businesses may now be released from the Services. But I would like the Government to show more sympathy for such men, and provide still quicker release, because I assure the Government that the strain upon the wives and mothers left at home all these years is now almost unbearable. I wish that the Government would be still more generous in the attitude they have adopted.
I am concerned with the problem of licences issued by the Board of Trade to men who wish to set up in business on their own account. There are men in the Forces preparing for the day when they return home. There are men who have been released from the Forces who have no work to do, and want employment, and they are also very much concerned. It is highly commendable that men in the early release groups are now making plans for employment of their abilities, and the maintenance of their families, when their period of service ends. I have no doubt that a great majority of men in the Forces are wage earners and would be willing and happy to return to that status when released; but there are large numbers of men with ambitions to carve their own careers, out of their own independent endeavours, and it is for that kind of man that I am speaking. These men are the pioneers, the bright spirits of British life. These are the men of high courage and purpose and resource, who are prepared to sink everything they have, money, muscle, and brain, in an unaided effort to make their own fortunes.
I know that the Government do not like private enterprise. They have an insensate prejudice against anything, and anybody, who challenges mass production and State-controlled enterprise. This prejudice has become obvious in the legislation already introduced: in aviation, banks, housing—no private enterprise. But whether the Government like it or not, it remains a fact, and I think it is a most important and a most encouraging fact in the rather bleak situation in which this Socialist-ridden country now finds itself, that without the expression of the fullest enterprise, and the brightest endeavour on the part of individual men and women, there is no hope for the survival of Great Britain as a first class Power, with all that means for a higher standard of living for our own people and the people of other countries. The ex-Servicemen, for whom I am speaking tonight, are in that category of bright spirits; and I claim that they deserve the warmest support of this House in their gallant efforts to assist themselves.
I hope no one will suppose that just a few men are concerned. The last President of the Board of Trade intimated in June that on the Board of Trade list of

what is called the Register of Withdrawing Retail Traders, that is to say those whose businesses stopped during the war, the number was 17,427. If I add to that the number of men now in the Forces who want to establish new businesses, the number may very well reach a hundred thousand or more. What happens to such a man when he comes out of the Army and wants to set up his own independent business? First of all he has to meet with all sorts of restrictions, regulations and orders that flow from the local authorities. To these are added further restrictions from the Ministry of Supply, recently the Ministry of Production, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Food and others; and when, and if, these problems are surmounted, a somewhat disillusioned, but still eager applicant comes across the principle barrier to his enterprise. That is the Board of Trade with its licensing regulations. I brought to the notice of the President of the Board of Trade this afternoon a difficult case. I put it in the form of this question from one of my constituents:
…if he has considered the case brought to his notice of the ex-Serviceman discharged through being medically unfit, whose application to open a small business on his own account in Cupar, Fife, has been disallowed by the local price regulation committee, though an Italian, interned during the war, has recently been allowed to do so; and what action he is taking.
The right hon. Gentleman undertook to investigate the case; but it has been before his notice for a long time. I have brought several similar cases to the notice of the Board of Trade, and in no single instance has the application of the man been granted. In every case the application has been turned down, and these gallant ex-Servicemen are denied this opportunity, in this free country, to start a business of their own. This is a shocking situation. The regulations on which the right hon. Gentleman and his friends rely are, of course, based on the statement of the former President of the Board of Trade last June. But that was made only a few weeks after the defeat of Germany, and it is now six months since Germany was defeated. It was made before the Japanese war was over, and that is now finished. We are now in comparative peace; we find ourselves with Lend-Lease stopped; and with this great country on the ebb, not the flow. In such a situation, unless the most drastic, ener-


getic steps are taken, we cannot regain our old position. It is a case now of "Do"—vigorously, manfully and with every form of enterprise—"or die"; and I am seeking that we should "Do." That is what the President of the Board of Trade is telling us day after day about exports. Surely it is common sense as well as justice that the ex-Serviceman, who has fought so well throughout this war, should be granted the liberty he wants
I would like the House to realise what is the problem. I take the case of a man whose circumstances I have brought to the notice of the Department. If a man applies for permission to open a business he is told to apply to the local Price Regulation Committee. In every case of which I know this is the answer he receives from the Committee:
I have to refer to your application for a licence in respect of the business mentioned below. This has now been carefully considered, but I have to inform you that the Committee is unable to grant a licence. The Committee is not obliged to assign reasons for the granting or refusal of Licences"—
a strange and somewhat disturbing phrase in a British document—
the Committee, is not obliged to assign reasons for its actions.
That, I believe, is just what the Gestapo used to say—
but I have to draw your notice to the statement on shop licensing policy made by the President of the Board of Trade"—
to which I have already referred.
In view of this statement I have to inform you that in order to provide preferential treatment in commencing business for (a) persons disabled during the recent war, and (b) ex-traders who closed down on account of the war, the Committee is precluded, save in the most exceptional circumstances, from granting a licence except to a person who fails within one of the four classes…mentioned…overleaf. No licences can be granted on the grounds of meeting the essential needs of consumers. As your application does not fall within any of these four classes and as the Committee is unable to regard the circumstances of your application as exceptional, the Committee is accordingly unable to grant the licence.
Here are the four conditions, at least one of which must be satisfied by the returning soldier, if he is to be allowed to start his own business. He must be a person disabled during the present war. That evidently means that he must have had a leg or arm off: apparently, it does

not include men discharged because they are medically unfit. The President of the Board of Trade promised me he would look into that matter, but that is the situation at this moment. He must be a person recommencing a retail business which was closed down during, and on account of the circumstances of, the war. He must be a person who has acquired the good will of an existing business; or be a person who is removing an existing business to premises strictly comparable as to rent, size, and character, and in the near vicinity of the existing business. Why cannot a man who wishes to start a new business, a man with an idea and enthusiasm and faith in himself to make a contribution, make that contribution? Has not the moment arrived when these Regulations, which were no doubt proper in June, with the Japanese war still raging, are no longer applicable to the situation? I am appealing to the Board of Trade on behalf of ex-Servicemen for reconsideration of the whole matter. It is madness to shackle enterprise now in the way we are doing. These are men of all classes and all political creeds. They are not necessarily my supporters; they include men who voted against me at the Election, but who are determined to get a chance to display their own initiative in order that the greatness of this country may be recovered.

Dr. Morgan: Do I understand that the hon. Member's case is not that a disabled ex-Serviceman is refused permission to start a productive business, but that men are not allowed, under the present rules, to start a distributive business for the distribution of goods which may be in short supply?

Mr. Henderson Stewart: If the hon. Member will do me the honour to read Hansard tomorrow, he will see that was not the case I made.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. Renton: I rise to support the plea which has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart), and in doing so I would attempt to give the House a very broad analysis of the types of restrictions with which ex-Servicemen are now faced. We may divide them, broadly into those restrictions which in any event existed before hostilities began, and the enormous number of restrictions which have been


invented and imposed since the war started and which are still in existence. So far as those which were in existence before the war are concerned, they were mainly of two kinds and existed for two reasons. They were, first of all, those restrictions which ensured that people did not try to earn a living, unless they possessed a form of skill which in the public interest it was considered necessary they should have. The most obvious case is that of the doctor, and most professional men came under that heading. In the retail trades also, certain restrictions of that kind prevailed, as for instance, chemists.
The other kind of restriction which existed before the war arose from the need to protect the people engaging in a particular occupation from bankruptcy, or the need to prevent the public from having an inefficient service through too many people competing in that occupation. I need hardly remind hon. Members opposite, at any rate—because I think probably in those days they welcomed it more perhaps than we on this side of the House, and they are more likely to think it valuable than we do—that the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, provides an example of that type of restriction.
People put up with some of these things even before the war. There was generally some justification for them. Parliament had considered the matter very carefully indeed, and they were working not too badly. The men then went away to the war, having left behind them a free society, with those limitations, and a society for which they were prepared to fight and lay down their lives. To what have they come back? They have come back to a form of society in which it is virtually impossible for a man to be his own master without the permission of the rubber stamp. That is the state of affairs which we have reached; and it occurs to me, from the experience which I have had, like that of my hon. Friend, that in order to engage in any form of wholesale or retail business, the permission of a local price regulation committee or some such body is necessary. It may well be that during the war this second category—the category of restrictions imposed by the war—was necessary to ensure that the fighting services and the munition factories had sufficient man

power, to preserve transport, to ensure fair distribution and to save petrol. But surely, with things gradually returning to normal, the public have a right to expect that a review of those restrictions will take place, so that as things gradually return to normal the restrictions may be removed.
I would like to give an instance of the sort of thing I mean. I mentioned that we have now reached the stage when all forms of retail business have to be sanctioned by a local price regulation committee, and it surprises one to learn that that is extended beyond strictly retail business to the business of a hairdresser. There is a town in my constituency with approximately 6,000 inhabitants. Incidentally, it is a great shopping centre for a large rural population. It has one ladies' hairdresser's shop. There is an officer in the R.A.F. who is shortly to be demobilised and wishes with his wife, to start up as a hairdresser in that town. He has appealed, and I have also appealed for him, to the Price Regulation Committee, in order that the necessary licence may be obtained because it appears to be necessary. This is the reply that I have received:
It is correct that there is only one ladies' hairdresser in Ramsey"—
that is the town—
but, in refusing a licence, the Committee have taken into account the fact that two other establishments have been closed down on account of the war. In one case the pro-prietress is serving in His Majesty's Forces and it is understood that she is paying rent on the premises and there is every likelihood that she will come back and the business will be reopened. The other shop is also likely to be opened."—
No reasons are given—
In those circumstances"—
and those were the only circumstances justifying refusal
''the Committee consider that the interests of the former traders should not be prejudiced by the granting of a licence to Mr. Hyslop.
The price regulation committee is proceeding on the assumption that this fair-sized town with its large rural area is going to exist on three hairdressing shops only. I would like to add, to the argument which has been put forward this afternoon, the general contention that, not only are these Regulations in themselves now unnecessary, out-of-date and oppressive, but also that they are being applied in an unpractical and oppressive manner.
Many cases can be put forward to justify a review of these restrictions and I am asking that the Minister shall undertake to review all of them carefully. They are very numerous indeed. If he will make such a review I would very greatly appreciate it, and so, I am sure, would very many other hon. Members, if he would consider at the same time the effect upon the ex-Serviceman of the old Regulations which existed before the war. I can give an example. A great many men were in the road haulage business before the war, and had one vehicle at any rate and possibly two, when they were called up. They surrendered their licences, and many of them surrendered their vehicles, sold them or had them requisitioned. If these men ever want to set up in the road haulage business again, they will be very severely handicapped when they come before the Traffic Commissioners for purely technical reasons which, if nothing is done, will prevent them from ever being in the road haulage business again. The law prevents any man from having a licence, unless he can prove the public need for it. In order to prove public need, it is necessary in 99 cases out of 100 for him to show that he had been continuously operating vehicles over the previous 12 months. I am talking of the practice in 1937–39. The Serviceman coming back to civil life will never be able to prove that. This therefore is an instance where the previous restrictions also will have to be considered very carefully when endeavouring to arrive at a solution which the ex-Serviceman will find just. It is surely to the advantage of the Government to consider this point of view: Ex-Servicemen will be seriously disillusioned about all their efforts of the last six years, if they find that they are up against the sort of brick-wall which this mass of restrictions creates.

It being a Quarter-past Nine o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Pearson.]

9.16 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Ellis Smith): Let me assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that if the Government remain in power,

the returning ex-Servicemen will not be disillusioned in the same way as many of us were after the last war. The hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate was good enough to congratulate the Government on their policy with regard to the administration of Scheme C. We are pleased to have that placed on record. Then he said that the men in the Forces are now looking forward to coming home and starting in business. Those of us who served in the last war can realise that thousands of our men who have served this country so well in this war will be looking forward to coming home. The hon. Gentleman went on to say that we did not like private enterprise. I do not know why he should have introduced that this evening, but let me assure him and all those who are inclined to support him, that this Government and the people who are supporting it will prove to be the best friends of the small business men, whom they will defend against the monopolists and big business men.

Mr. Renton: And of the Cooperative movement?

Mr. Smith: If there were time, I would accept the challenge about the Co-operative movement. If hon. Gentlemen understood the growth of that movement, they would understand that there is no comparison between an organisation that was built up by the struggles and sacrifices of the sort of people who have really made this country great, and the monopolists and big business people. Those who served in the last war cannot forget the great contribution made by the engineers, and cannot forget that within two years of that war they suffered a reduction in wages of 25s. a week. Who were then undermining the home market? Who were then taking out of the pockets of the ordinary people the purchasing power which these small business men were dependent on for their livelihood? I do not mind criticism, because when we are sure of our case, and when we have been brought up in such a school as that in which many of us have been brought up in, we know that our case is so strong and unanswerable that we have no doubt on which side the judgment of our people will come on issues of this kind.
The hon. Gentleman said that the ex-Servicemen were looking forward to com-


ing back. I agree with him, but let me place on record that the Government, and the men and women who support them, will take second place to no one in their defence of the rights of the Armed Forces. He went on to say that the Board of Trade was the principal barrier to enterprise, especially from the point of view of the returned men. I hope the hon. Gentleman does not really mean that, because the present occupants of the office do not plead guilty to that accusation. Even if he were making it against the present occupants of the office, surely he would not make it against the Coalition Government. If he did, he would make it against the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton). The Coalition Government were responsible for drawing up these terms of reference and for determining this policy. As I shall show later by producing evidence, it was they who decided this policy and who said that during the transitional period this policy would have to continue.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I said all that, but I went on to say that the statement made by the President of the Board of Trade in June was made at a very different stage of our history from today.

Mr. Ellis Smith: We are still in a difficult situation, and until we are out of that situation we are going to defend the men and women who have served us so well. The hon. Member made a number of other references and I want to draw the attention of the House to this. Hon. Members have rightly spoken about men returning from the Armed Forces, but they have failed to mention that thousands of them have not yet returned. [An Hon. Member: "Millions."] Yes, millions; I do not know in what sense the word is used, but if it is used in one sense in which it could be interpreted I think we had better not be drawn into it. The war has not been over very long, and there are still millions who have not returned. We have a duty to those millions, because the Coalition Government made promises to them and, as far as we are concerned, we are going to keep those promises for a change. The hon. Gentleman referred to decisions which have been made in individual cases. I have had no notice of those individual cases and cannot, therefore, be expected to deal with them, but I will say in defence of those who have

made the decisions that they are not the decisions of a "rubber stamp, "but of local democratic machinery run by local personnel, men and women who have the confidence of their fellows because of their character and their record in their locality. Those are the men and women who are administering the Regulations laid down by the Coalition Government
The hon. Gentleman will agree that we have had short notice of the raising of this question; I am not complaining of that, I am only explaining it because of what I want to say. It will be most important that from now on I should weigh very carefully every word I use, because in all probability this Debate will be read by thousands of men and women still serving in all parts of the world and I must not mislead them. We have to think of the men and women who have served us so well and are still serving. There is no bureaucracy about this; speaking for myself, as an individual, I would be glad to co-operate in rooting out bureaucracy wherever it may be found. Those of us who have suffered from the bureaucrats in the past will be glad to receive co-operation in that direction. We have to rely on local democratic machinery to administer this business; the personnel of the local committees is known in the areas and consists, in the main, of public-spirited men and women who, in order to secure uniformity of administration throughout the country, act upon a basis of principle, which the hon. Gentleman correctly outlined. The main principles upon which persons can qualify for a licence are these: Persons disabled during the recent war—and if anyone wants an interpretation of that, I have here a reply made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton) in reply to a question: second, persons recommencing a retail business which was closed during and on account of circumstances arising out of the recent war; third, persons who have acquired the goodwill of an existing business and, fourth, persons removing an existing business to premises strictly comparable as to rent, size, and character in the near vicinity of the existing business.
It is very important that we should get this on record. The Location of Retail Businesses Order was first made in November, 1941, and it had two main objects: first, to safeguard the position of


those who, through being called up or directed to other work, or for lack of supplies, had to close their businesses during the war; and second, to prevent the waste and interruption of distribution resulting from increasing the number of shops when supplies were so scarce. I am sure every hon. and right hon. Member will agree with me when I say it is most important that we should carry out those two promises that were made to the people who have suffered as a result of the war. The Order prevents the establishment of new retail businesses, or the transfer of shops from one area to another, without a licence from the Board of Trade. In January, 1943, a Register of Withdrawn Traders was established on which those who were obliged, owing to the war, to close their shops, could set down their names in order that their interests could be considered and watched in the administration of the Order.
The policy has been administered by the local Price Regulation Committees, except in London, where there is a special Committee to deal with the large number of cases under this Order; and I want to emphasise that we are indebted to the public-spirited men and women who have served us so well on these committees in very difficult circumstances. They have been most careful in their administration of the principle of the licensing; they have been most careful in interpreting the main principles laid down for their guidance, and the least I can do this evening is to place on record the tribute I have just paid them.
In June of this year the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot, who was then President of the Board of Trade, announced that from that time all ex-traders who were eligible for inclusion on the Register of Withdrawn Traders, whether they had inscribed their names on it or not, would be granted licences if they applied for them to resume their businesses. In addition, licences to open new businesses were only to be granted to disabled ex-Servicemen, or for special cases of hardship. The House will remember that in December, 1943, the right hon. Gentleman who is now Chancellor of the Exchequer and who was then President of the Board of Trade, announced that, while it was not the in-

tention of His Majesty's Government that the arrangements should be permanent, the Location of Retail Businesses Order would not be brought to an end with the cessation of hostilities in Europe, but would continue for some time during the transitional period, and further that, as long as it continued, the Order would be operated so as to facilitate the return to their former businesses of persons on the Board of Trade Register of Withdrawn Retail Traders. The Government are now examining this Order. We are in that transitional period, and although I cannot give a definite promise tonight, I will give a promise to this extent, that we are examining the Order with a view to considering whether any changes, either in the policy or in its administration, can be made in the light of our experience. We are considering whether it is desirable, and if so at what time, that any changes should be made. I will give an undertaking that what has been said in this Debate will be considered at the same time; and I conclude by repeating that, above all, we must remember the promises that were made to our fellow countrymen who have served us so well during the war. We are determined to maintain those promises.

Lieutenant William Shepherd: I have recently had several cases where men have applied for licences on the strongest possible grounds, and those licences have been subsequently granted, but these individuals have been called upon to wait for over six months before the Committee decided what to do. That imposes a great strain on the individual, and especially upon the disabled ex-Serviceman who cannot decide what his trade is to be. I ask the hon. Gentleman to use his influence to see that those requests are dealt with promptly as delay causes a great strain on men unable to bear it. In many cases reasons are not stated for refusal, and anxiety, often quite unwarranted, arises because of the refusal on the part of officials to say the reason why this or that should not be granted. I believe that hon. Members on all sides of the House receive needless correspondence because of official refusals to be frank. I suggest that the Government Department pay attention to this request and get their servants to give frank answers wherever possible.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I will give an undertaking that the latter point which was made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman shall be considered when reconsideration is being given to the whole policy, and in regard to the individual cases he has mentioned, if he will be good enough to let

me have those cases, I will have investigation made to see whether there was any justification for the six months' delay.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight Minutes to Ten o'Clock.